The findings made by Gibb have been regarded by a legion ofresearcherssuchasAl- Kahtani and Allam (2013), Burleson (2009), Czech and Forward (2013), Forward et al (2011), Glomo-Narzoles (2012), Hajdasz (2012), and Madlock and Booth-Butterfield (2012), as a significant contribution to the understanding of supportive and defensive communication climates. These conducted studies will be scrutinised in more detail: In organisationalcontexts, theBurleson (2009)studydescribed supportiveness through outcomesof supportive interactions; however, in two different investigations he focused moreonthefactors that impact on individuals’ evaluation of supportive messages. These investigations revealed that significantly high levels of emotional upset minimised the abilitytoprocesssupportivemessages.Forwardetal(2011)investigatedthefunctionalityof Gibb’s(1961)theory,byincorporatingtheCommunicationClimate Index of Costigan and Schmeidler(1984) intheir own inspection tool.Theresultsofthisstudysuggested a need forinterpretationandreconceptualisationofthecommunicationclimateconstructs.
In educational contexts, Hajdasz’s (2012) study explored the communicationclimate of a group of students at a university in Ottawa, according to the Gibb’smodel,focusing specifically on factors that affect the feelings of the communication climate. His study revealed that defensive communication supersedes the positive impact of supportive communication on the establishmentofacommunicationclimate.AstudybyAl-Kahtani andAllam(2013)investigatedthecommunication climate of a university in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; neutrality and empathy were found to be the most prominent facets, and evaluation the least defensive in the communication climate investigated. The climate was also found to be predominantly supportive. A study conducted by Glomo- Narzoles (2012) in another school setting revealed that the construct neutralityemerged as one of the most dominant aspects of the communication climate and that the communication climate was related significantly totheinstitution’sproductivity.
TheMadlockandBooth-Butterfield(2012)studyrevealedasignificantrelationshipbetween jobsatisfaction,interpersonalrelations,performance,supervisorratings,turnover,support, and the communication climate in an organisational situation. Another organisation- based studybyCzechandForward(2013) identified a transposed associationbetween subordinateandequalityfeelingsofsuperior effectiveness. It was alsonotedinthis study that satisfaction in relationships was predicted by description and empathy.
102
Although the Gibb’s model is conceptually appealing, enduring and ubiquitous, it has received little elaboration or empirical support (Forward et al 2011:4; Czech& Forward 2013:11).ThisisduetoGibb’snever havingcreateda survey instrument of his own to measure the validity of his theory, and to the fact that when a survey instrument did become available (Costigan & Schmeidler 1984 Communication Climate Index), “the conceptofsupportive and defensive communicationhad taken a functionalist and skills- orientated turn”, which was more applicable to practitioners than to theoreticians (Czech &Forward2013:11).ThisdilemmapromptedForward et al (2011) to conduct a study to measure the empirical dimensionality of Gibb’s theory.The evidence collected in their studysuggested potential problems with the underlying dimensionality oftheCostigan and Schmeidler (1984) Communication Climate Index, created to reflect the types of behaviouroriginallyhypothesisedbyGibb.
The researcher took note of the fact that the Communication Climate Index mainly measures the perceptions of individuals with regard to the communication behaviour of their interlocutors, which couldpointtopossiblebias.Thusthe researcher feels that to measure the communication climate focus of a specific group of individuals accurately, the communication behaviour preference of this group of individuals must be assessed first. Then, subsequently, the perception that this group has of the communication behaviour of their interlocutors must be assessed.
Despite the dimensionality challenges of the Communication Climate Index, Czech and Forward (2010:435) believed that Gibb’scategories provided the most significant direction in terms of how to create or avoidaspecificcommunicationstyle,andtheeffect of behaviour on desired relational and organisational outcomes. They came to the conclusion that “researchers could begin their work with the proposed conceptual framework [Gibb’s model] and refine a measuring tool that captures these global dynamics [such as task and authority dynamics] while simultaneously identifying specific behaviours that contribute to these interpersonal relational impressions” (Forward et al 2011:13). Therefore, researchers have still continued utilisingtheGibb’s model after 2010 as a foundation for their studies (Czech & Forward 2013; Hajdasz 2012),incorporatingtheCommunication Climate Indexintotheir studiesas ameasuring instrument.
103
Althoughthis present study also utilised the Gibb’s model as its foundation, it did not utilise the Communication Climate Index(asdevelopedbyCostigan&Schmeidler1984) persebutonlyreferredtospecificelementsofthisCommunication Climate Index, as the objectivesof the present study were to identify and definethe empirical concepts of the model, create a new measuring instrument from themodel and draw up guidelines to addressthecommunicationclimateinSouthAfricanpublichospitals.
3.6 CONCLUSION
This chapter described the Gibb’s Defensive Communication Climate Paradigm (1961) according to positive/supportive and negative/defensive communication climates. The aspects that were discussed included: the conceptual framework, theories or models related to communication climate, Gibb’s Defensive Communication Climate Paradigm (1961) and the conceptual framework applied to nursing practice relationships. Gibb’s theory (1961) describes the communication climate by highlighting defensive or supportive communication behaviour. The nature of the communication climate is determined by the (positive or negative) behaviour of participants during communication encounters.
In the following chapter, the quantitative research design underlying this study is discussed according to the conceptual framework and research questions (the latter deduced from the conceptual framework and literature review). The research methodology for the development and testing of the research instrument is discussed according to the developmental and testing phases.
104
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 3, the Gibb’s Defensive Communication Climate Paradigm (1961) was discussed according to the conceptual framework, theories or models related to the communication climate, and how it applies to nursing practice relationships.
In this chapter, the study is discussed according to the conceptual framework and the research questions (the latter, deduced from the conceptual framework), the research design and the objectives underlying the study. Furthermore, the research methodology for the development and testing of theresearchinstrumentisdiscussedaccording to the developmental and testing phases.