Clearly, there are some question marks about the coding schedule in Figure 9.2 . There does appear to be some overlap in the behavioural categories covered in the schedule.

For example, it could be difficult to distinguish between what is ‘offering directions’

(taking initiative) and ‘offering ideas’ (brainstorming). It might be even more difficult to draw a distinction between ‘offering suggestions’ (brainstorming) and ‘making helpful suggestions’ (offering positive ideas). Similarly, there does not appear to be much difference between the behaviours in ‘drawing in others’ and ‘being responsive to others’. You may argue that the first is defined by invitation, the second by response. But making the distinction when the interactions are coming thick and fast in the research setting will be much less easy.

The point about all these potential confusions is that different observers may make different estimations. This obviously has potentially harmful implications for the reliability of the coding schedule.

A much smaller point is: How does the observer indicate on the schedule the occurrence of a particular interaction?