2005
Boston, MA
Nonverbal Communication Division
2nd Business Meeting
November 19, 2005
Attendance:
Tom Bruneau, David Weber, Shawn Wahl, Diana Ivy, Juan Santelises,
Judee Burgoon, Gary Bente, Ross Buck, Denise Vrchota, Valerie
Manusov, Claude Miller, Georgios Triantis, Jack Sargent, Susanne
Jones (14)
Meeting Minutes Prepared by: Susanne Jones (February 2006)
Revised:
Opening and Old Business
1. The meeting was called to order by Buck.
a. Bruneau made a suggestion to distribute minutes
earlier to NVC members and to put minutes on the NVC website
2. Miller was thanked for his fantastic work on the
NVC website.
3. Action: Passed 2004 Minutes
4. Manusov reported on the 2005 panel organization and the 2005
panel attendance
a. The local scholars, (chaired by Burgoon),
semiotics debate (chaired by Buck), and human avatars (chaired
by Miller/Jones) panels were attended each by ~35 people.
b. Our attempt to liaise with other divisions to generate panels
was not very successful.
5. Manusov reported on the Legislative Assembly (LA)
meetings
a. LAs efforts to produce a report that identifies
the standards and criteria by which to judge a communication
program were tabled for the 2006 meeting.
b. NCA is on solid financial ground.
c. Anything else?
New Business: NVC panel organization for the 2006
NCA convention in San Antonio, TX
1. Manusov reported that
a. we have three NVC slots for the 2006 conference.
b. we could increase the number of slots by
i. collaborating with the Interpersonal
Communication (IPC) division.
ii. Requesting additional slots from NCA
2. Manusov asked
a. whether we want to accept papers or continue
planning panels for the 2006 convention.
b. whether we want to continue our liaison efforts.
3. Discussion: Accepting papers vs. planning panels
for the 2006 convention?
a. Jones suggested that we accept papers, but
Burgoon pointed out that that will break the tradition that we
are trying to develop in the NVC division.
i. Sargent pointed out that devising the paper
reviewer process might not be good.
ii. Triantis pointed out that we might have problems with
the semiotics/NVC overlap
b. Action: Passed that we continue to plan our own panels
for the 2006 convention
4. Discussion: Brainstorming panel ideas for the
2006 conference
a. A panel on what IS NVC? (Miller)
b. A panel on semiotics and NVC: Differences in the
methodologies used by semiotics and NVC (Miller); what are
signals?; how do we perceive signals? (Bruneau); the
neurophysiology of signals and nonverbal cues (Burgoon);
semiosis and information processing (Bruneau).
c. A local scholars panel with Ickes, Pennebaker, Knapp (and
others). We could define the local scholars panel more
specifically (devise a specific topic) (Manusov)
d. An applied NVC panel: Reading body language, deception, sense
making of NVC cues. We could also develop a conversation
analysis session (e.g., show clip, such as a clip from Gottman’s
data set and analyze it) (Wahl). Burgoon added that, similar to
a panel she attended at the 2005 Gesture conference (in Lyon?)
we could analyze videotaped observational data. Buck added that
we could post clips on the website and access them at the
conference
e. A deception panel (Bruneau)
f. A pop culture panel that debunks (or verifies) what we know
about NVC (Miller)
g. A panel featuring a roundtable format (no specific topic was
discussed)
h. A tribute panel to Kendon’s and/or Hall’s work (Bruneau)
i. We should take advantage of our website: People can post
their panel contributions and other relevant resources on the
web
j. We should generate further panel ideas by posting a request
for ideas on CRTNET.
5. Scheduling the business meeting: Miller suggested
that we plan the 2006 business meeting at a different time (e.g.,
dinner time).
6. Discussion: How can we increase participation?
a. We could send e-mail to ALL NCA divisions that
includes a link to our division (Miller).
b. Sargent suggested that we ask NCA to stuff conference bags
with NVC panel information (as well as other regional
conferences).
c. BUT what are we asking people to do?: In essence, we’re
asking people to come to the business meeting and we’re
encouraging people to submit info to our website (Secretary
NOTE: At this point, members do NOT know our website; it is
actually http://www.ou.edu/nvc/nonverbal_communication.htm
d. We should also engage in efforts to associate with other
relevant interest groups inside and outside of NCA (e.g., search
for links to other websites and be linked to other websites).
e. We should encourage members to submit relevant information to
our website (via Miller) (e.g., syllabi, book information,
clips).
f. We should disseminate information on other relevant
conferences.
g. We should invite people from other areas to our panels (e.g.,
high tech computer designers, architects).
h. We could contact publishers. We could ask Sage to showcase
NVC and NVC undergraduate text books.
i. We could organize a conference that is outside of NCA
(Burgoon questioned the expense and the time and pointed to
Western).
j. All attendants agreed that we should continue the discussion
of how to increase participant via e-mail.
7. Discussion: Should we offer awards?
a. Decided that we should ask other divisions to
provide us with additional evaluation.
8. Actions:
a. Elected Burgoon to Vice Chair, beginning with the
2006 conference.
b. Passed division bylaws with one amendment (“awards up to
$100”)
c. Elected a (submission or nominating) committee (David Weber,
Tom Bruneau, Jack Sargent) Top Student Paper and Top Paper
Awards
9. A discussion whether we should have a graduate
student portal and a graduate representative was tabled for the 2006
business meeting?
10. Buck adjourned the business meeting
