Conceptualizing Small Group Process

Abstract

This article is the prelude to a four-article sequence that will define, illustrate, and critique a multidimensional approach for measuring and understanding small group process. Problems associated with process analysis are presented with a specific focus on definitional and methodological concerns. The need for a comprehensive system that will help researchers to separate and comprehend the individual parts of a group and their relationship to the whole group is articulated. (The second in the series also appears in this issue of SGB).We dance round in a ring and suppose, But the secret sits in the middle and knows. Robert Frost, 1964 As children, we smiled when insight dawned upon us in our recognition of the problem facing the blind men in their discoveries and subsequent definitions of the elephant. Years later, as clinicians and researchers of the system called &dquo;group,&dquo; we find ourselves in an awkwardly similar situation-only our eyes are open and the elephant is human.The analogy may well end here (the elephant being one, the group being one and many), but the concept of seeing the whole while understanding the individual parts and their relationships to one another and to the whole may well illustrate the difficulty in defining group process. We are reminded by Friedlander (1982) that human systems develop a SMALL GROUP BEHAVIOR

Cohesion

“…In describing the problems that have impeded progress in group process research, we indicated the need for a multidimensional perspective (Fuhriman et al, 1984). The categorical system introduced in the second article (Burlingame et al, 1984) has been illustrated in this article through an application to the cohesion literature.…”

“…Although the investigation of small group process over the past decade has been characterized by a marked increase in methodological and statistical sophistication, the integration of findings has been confounded by a number of problems, some of which are unique to small group research. In an overview of these problems (Fuhriman et al, 1984), we concluded that this lack of integration may be partially due to an absence of conceptual clarity in the process variables and insufficient consideration of the measurement parameters with which they are studied. In the second article in this series (Burlingame et al, 1984), we proposed and delineated a multidimensional classification system for process research capable of describing the prominent elements of small groups as well as the procedures used to observe the relationship between and among those elements.…”

“…One issue concerning conceptual definition, discussed in the first article (Fuhriman et al, 1984), is whether the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Within this issue is a second problem: Variable definitions are often too vague to apply concise and more sophisticated measurement techniques.…”

Cancer Support Groups: Client Outcome and the Context of Group Process

“…Group process can be thought of as a constellation of factors necessary for the functioning of an effective small group but not sufficient for the group to achieve its goals. Fuhriman, Drescher, and Burlingame (1984) defined group process as "the ecological characteristics of the group" (p. 431)-a definition compatible with social work's understanding of person-environment transactions. Perhaps the most widely accepted understanding of how group process operates is Yalom's (1995) identification of 12 therapeutic factors.…”

Η Συνέργια Μεταξύ Των Μελών Μιας Ομάδας Και Οι Επιπτώσεις Της Στο Σχεδιασμό Της Εργασίας

“…∆ύο ή περισσότερα άτοµα τα οποία σε συνεχή βάση επικοινωνούν και έρχονται σε άµεση και ουσιαστική επαφή για την πραγµάτωση σκοπού αποτελούν ένα Γκρουπ (Fuhriman, Drewschler & Burlingame, 1984). Σε έναν οργανισµό εντοπίζονται δύο βασικές κατηγορίες, το Επίσηµο Γκρουπ που ο σκοπός του και η λειτουργία του έχουν άµεση σχέση µε την επίτευξη πεφρασµένων στόχων του οργανισµού (Zander, 1985) και το Ανεπίσηµο Γκρουπ που δηµιουργείται ως αποτέλεσµα των καθηµερινών δραστηριοτήτων, αλληλεπιδράσεων και των συναισθηµάτων των µελών του και έχει σκοπό να ενσωµατώσει και να εκφράσει τις δικές τους ανάγκες (Smith, 1989).…”