> This is my revision advice. I spend one evening reviewing the article and make hard efforts to make suggestions to better it. Please check them and revise. If you have different opinion, feel free to communicate with me.PLease DOULBE CHECK IF THE ARTICL

Social Interaction Framework

Author’s name

Institutional affiliations

I leave my revision advice in blue words or in the notes corresponding to each part of the article. Please check them and revise.

Social interaction framework

Descriptive vignette

A second-year student who is pursuing a degree course in medical health was applying for a summer research position. In the process, the director of the research program noticed some discrepancies on the student's resume. One more specific discrepancy in her curriculum vitae revolved around the fact that only one out of her six publications listed could be confirmed. The director of the research program chose to follow up on the issue with the student herself questioned about the matter. The student responded that the list of publications was not due to an act of deliberate dishonesty but rather of sloppiness. As a result, OME (Office of the Medical Examiner) that deals with such issues was conducted to investigate the issue with most attention placed on the student’s application. It turned out that the staff of OME discovered that most of the publications that were indicated on the application form were also listed on the medical school report application form. Moreover, to the surprise of the OME ( Office of the Medical Examiner), they also uncovered the fact that the volunteer work that was enlisted on the student’s application was exaggerated grossly and truly, the student is not a member of the honor society indicated on her application form. Furthermore, the school administration reaches a consensus that the student should not have been accepted in the school in the first place because she did not actually meet the requirements for enrollment as much as she is performing exemplary well in the medical school. Besides, another notable dilemma the administration faces is the fact that her performance in course work is exemplary and she has not been involved in any allegations of gross conduct before this incident.

Figure 1: a photo of the medical student explaining herself to the research director

How Boundaries Are Established in The Above-mentioned Vignette’s Social Interaction

Like many other interactions, social interaction boundaries are guided by the values, beliefs, and social norms of the unexpected and unplanned results of the social interaction process. Additionally, according to some scholars, social norms form a very crucial element of social interaction. In other words, it is through the social norms that a boundary of a particular interaction in a certain social setting occurs (Smith-Lovin & Heise, 2016). (Could you explain in detail how social norms, values and beliefs determine the boundary in an interaction to replace the following repetition of your point?)Besides, a system of norms, beliefs, and values establishes the behavior or words that are acceptable or not acceptable in a group. (so the content before here is meant to argue that social norms and values establish boundaries, which seems to be the gist of this paragraph) As a result, it can be argued that, previous research works such as Konvalinka & Roepstorff (2012) about the conditions that establish the existence of norms as opposed to the emphasis of the functions of norms in a social interaction, indicate the fact that there is a close relationship between the implication of norms, values and beliefs in social interactions. (but what this sentence tries to say is the relation between norms, values and beliefs. What good would this sentence do to the flow of the argument? ) In essence, the boundaries of a social setting are determined by the norms, values and beliefs of a certain setting in which the interaction is taking place (this sentence seems to reiterate the point that has been repeated so many times. Could you add more explanation of your point to this paragraph rather than mere repeating it?). As a result, this can be compared to the implications established by other injunction models like moral codes, legal rule, and hypothetical imperatives.

In this interaction, the norms that defined the boundaries of social interaction can be assumed to be the ones that arose without design or planning by either the Research Director or the medical student. During analysis of an interaction, it is important to analyze the reasons that made such norms come into being as boundaries of the interaction (Konvalinka & Roepstorff, 2012). In this case, the norms that are establishing the boundary of the interaction between the director and the student are norms of honesty, promise-keeping, loyalty, and reciprocity among others. In this case, honesty of the student is brought into question when the director discovered that only one of the listed publications has been approved. As a result, in order for the initial boundary of this interaction to be maintained, the student must be able to fight the allegations laid against her. In other words, the boundary of this conversation depends on the repeated battle between honesty of the student and integrity of the research director (If this part of arguing has more scholarly references, it would be more convincing and meaty. Could you add more theories to back up your arguing here?).

In this interaction, some bargaining power is required to ensure that both the research director and the student realize an outcome that will be later deemed as the preferred result. As a result, the boundary stipulated by norms allows for the director of research and the student to engage in a costly sequence of promises and threats in order to arrive at an agreement but in any conversation it is always better to establish some formal trading rules like alternating between the two preferred techniques or argument (Konvalinka & Roepstorff, 2012). The boundary of this conversation ensures that a Pareto efficiency of this conversation is realized in the end. The student is faced with threats from OME investigations that ensure that the boundary of this conversation is always maintained. In simple terms, honesty as a norm is a boundary on which this conversation is based hence; the cooperative action of the student in the course of the investigation offers a positive externality to both school administration and the research director in the process. Therefore, the student, the research director, and the school administration are given a choice to choose what they deem is best but based on the boundary of the conversation; their decision should conform to the high level of integrity and honesty.

(It seems the two questions “What sort of activities does the physical layout encourage, discourage, or is it neutral towards? What are the key materials within the setting?” have not been answered)

Communication in This Social Interaction

The conversation between the student, the director, and the school administration is a dynamic sequence of actions that occur between individuals who are capable of changing their mode of interaction based on the reaction of others in the conversation. In this case, the director was able to modify the conversation upon the realization that some of the listed publications on her application were not approved (Konvalinka & Roepstorff, 2012). (Normally, this is more like description of the case and it is weird to quote description of the case from others. Please delete the reference and make quotations only when necessary in quoting theories to push the flow of argument)When it comes to communications in social interaction, the mode of communication can be classified as repeated, accidental, regulated, or regular. Communication, in this case, is represented in its most prevalent form, or a face-to-face interaction, where the director and the student interact while facing each other. In essence, the communication can be said to have been modeled by the fact that the reality of being a student and a director is viewed as a social happening. In this case, the student and the director cannot be understood in terms without the other.

Another important communication trait that was evident in this social interaction revolved around the fact that it was goal-driven. In this case, the goal of the student was to hand in an application in order to obtain research opportunity as a requirement of her course work while at the same time, the director of research was driven by the goal of ensuring that research opportunities are only given to those students who fit the right criteria. Their interaction was full of explanation and interrogations in an effort to establish an interaction based on ideas that can be deemed as conceptual. From a distance, it was evident that this social interaction was ambitious and always aiming to arrive at a meticulous decision

In such social settings that involve administration matters, it is accepted that communication should always be warm, friendly and official. Additionally, the directors who have been found in such situations need to interact well without showing any favoritism, make unpopular and challenging decisions , show appreciation and concern about the welfare and the integrity of the students and, in the process, ensure that they do not misuse the administrative powers with which they have been accorded. Communication in this setting requires that individuals who are interacting to be able to strike the right note when it comes to social interactions to ensure that there is no cause of alarm under any circumstances.

There was a general evidence of a stroke between the student and the research administrator in the course of their communication. In this case, there was no form of patting, pinching or caressing in the course of the interaction. However, the student and the researcher director shook hands and said hello to each other. Additionally, personal validation was evident since the student introduced herself to the supervisor in a manner that suggested utmost respect she had for the supervisor. (So what on earth is the distance they keep between one another? Please summarise the answer clearly.)

Unusual Activity That I Discovered

Something that happened out of the ordinary was the fact that instead of admitting to her mistakes, the medical student remained adamant that including the publications in her application form was merely a result of accident. This looms as the most obviously unusual fact to me, especially when an investigation was launched to look into the student’s registration details to prove the eligibility of her documents. In simple terms, the fact that the volunteer work that was listed on the original enrollment form to the medical school was not valid proves that there was lack of a clear boundary in which the fraternity of the school is working . In this case, if there was a well-established framework the students must follow, it would have meant that the school administration was not taking up their responsibilities in the right manner (Smith-Lovin & Heise, 2016). The fact was not clear to other individuals who were in the midst because it required critical evaluation of the situation. In fact, one of the requirements of our coursework revolves around critical thinking and analysis that made it possible for me to patch together the missing links in order to identify the most important loophole in a discussion.

The Elements Of Social Interaction In This Setting

(ARE YOU SURE THE FOLLWOING CONTENT HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION “What makes the setting you have studied ‘everyday’? What aspects of what you have observed might you expect to see elsewhere?” Coz from what I can see, it lists the interaction elements but that does not mean these elements are common in our everyday life. Please make sure you understand the request right.)

University academic staff, administrators, and university students are crucial participators in higher education activities. Additionally, based on a systematic and organizational point of view, academic staff and university administrators are accepted as two cultural organizations that communicate and interact regularly with each other and hence in the process, the relationship is established and reestablished. Moreover, one of the most important elements in this contest lies in the fact that both the academic staff and the university administrators express a high level of respect, friendship, and collegiality towards each other’s professional and intellectual contributions. However, their functionality and commitments always determine how their social interaction shapes. In essence, individual’s level of interaction revolves around the fact that there is sharing of a common goal that, in the end, would result into the fulfillment of a common objective.

Organizational social interaction when it comes to higher education is acknowledged as complex as compared to other organizations because of their tendency to concentrate on their departmental structures and intellectual purpose. As a result, the interaction that goes on in this institution is always rich in cultural meanings and symbolism embedded in their daily communications. Students and academic staff establish their unique interaction cultures via indispensable functions and roles. In the process, their social interaction is very dynamic. One thing for sure is the fact that there is always a professional relationship that is goal-oriented. As such, face-to-face interactions between the students, students and academic staff and the administrators are highly evident (Konvalinka & Roepstorff, 2012). In simple terms, the respect that exists between the academic staff and administrators always gives room for an open interaction because of the mutual understanding and commitment to the objective of the higher institution.

In most higher education institutions, the students and the academic staff tend to enjoy the notion of an open communication and open dialogue, especially when it comes to face-to-face interactions. Additionally, against the backdrop of the relationship in the university, it is often clear that most of them engage in a social interaction because of an inspiration from their colloquies based on their ideas and opinions.

The aspects of interaction evident in another social setting revolve around the fact that most social interactions like in office organizations are also driven by goals and objectives. In other words, improving the organization profile is also one of the top priorities of most organizations. Just as the administrators in an academic institutions have to evaluate the progress of their students, business leaders may as well want to engage their workers in order to realize possible improvement areas and loopholes in their daily operations (Scollon 2014). Additionally, most business organizations emphasize on the significance of research and development to determine some new developments in their business environment. In other words, a social interaction that occurred between the student and the research director is something that can be applied in a business setting context. As such, the student requires the guidance of the research administrators while the workers require the resources, reputation, and operational effectiveness of their employer. Moreover, the significance and degree of the organizational bureaucratically structure are also crucial in other social interaction settings for instance where a minister is interacting with the president of the nation.

Employment of theoretical analysis to improve on the descriptive analysis

Employment of a social interaction theory in the analysis of the event will offer a good opportunity to extend the descriptive essay in terms of conceptual framework and critical analysis. In other words, social interaction theory will ensure that the way and the manner in which the student, the director and the actions that were taken by the university administration. In other words, observed patterns are very influential in establishing social relationships and in the process, help explain human behavior (Smith-Lovin & Heise, 2016). In this case, the employment of social interaction theory in analyzing the pickles that occurred in the interaction process between the student and the research director indicates that a number of factors can be pointed out. Apparently, the implication of these factors to the descriptive vignette is of utmost importance to the issue of social interaction. The first factor that needs to be considered revolved around the concept of group dynamics. Based on Kurt Levin’s argument, group dynamics help to point out the interaction that occurs between individuals and the group to which they belong. In this case, the student and the research director can be said to interact based on the need to meet university requirements as researchers. The second important element is the symbolic interactionism that can as well be used to produce a certain twist to the interaction that occurred between the student and the university administration on the enrollment day (Scollon 2014). In other words, the fact that the student was able to enroll for the medical course when her voluntary work that was indicated on the enrollment form was invalid symbolizes the fact that the university enrollment department is not doing its work effectively.

The theory of social interaction can also indicate that the social interaction between the university research director and the medical student can also be explained in the name of power and status. In other words, in terms of academic position, the research director can be said to have power over the student and in the process, the decision to approve the research application was in his hands (Scollon 2014). Additionally, the respect that existed between the student and the research director can be attributed to the status they hold each other in based on their professional objective of advancing the objectives of higher education.

References

Konvalinka, I., & Roepstorff, A. (2012). The two-brain approach: how can mutually interacting brains teach us something about social interaction?. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 6, 215.

Scollon, R. (2014). Mediated discourse as social interaction: A study of news discourse. Routledge.

Smith-Lovin, L., & Heise, D. R. (2016). Analyzing Social Interact: Adva. Routledge.

WHAT DOES THIS SENTENCE MEAN? WHAT DOES VALUES AND BELIEFS OF UNEXPECTED RESULTS REFER TO ? WHY DO unexpected results have beliefs and values?

Are you sure>?

Are you sure? Communication in this setting can only be friendly? Why cannot Investigation into dishonesty be tense?

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

PLEASE CHECK THIS PART YOURSELF. MAKE SURE IT ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS : Can you see any way to extend your descriptive effort? That is, how might you begin to use sociological concepts to build a more abstract analysis?