Talk:Relational dialectics/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here are two sources of helpful references with reasons why I believe they will be a great addition to the content of this theory.

^[1]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. 

^[2]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)

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)

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)