One group analysis and many. Response to Farhad Dalal’s ‘One group analysis or many?’

Abstract

Responding to Farhad Dalal's question 'one group analysis or many?' the author looks at contextual factors of working with groups, claiming that group therapists are different in different groups and adjusting to setting variables. He describes aspects of the 'Goettingen Model of Group Psychotherapy'. This model offers variability in conducting groups within one theoretical concept. Different scientific approaches are integrated in order to adjust to different patients and settings. Many aspects (e.g. a marked intersubjective approach and working with an 'responsive' mode ('antwortender modus') are close to Dalal's thinking. In contrast to Dalal, however, empirical evidence and evidence based therapies are seen as valuable parts of group psychotherapies and group analysis. Within this conceptual frame, working in and with groups is both-one group analysis and many.

Support for staff support groups: A role for group analysts

“…Vosmer (2018) suggested recently that group analysts should embrace quantitative methodologies to ensure access to the broadest possible range of information about the group psychotherapies. Staats (2018) argued that group analysis—and therefore individual group analysts—have an obligation to use scientific methods and to think scientifically. Questionnaire-based surveys of the kind described here are clearly a long way from the ‘gold-standard’ randomized control trials to which Staats (2018) referred.…”

“…Staats (2018) argued that group analysis—and therefore individual group analysts—have an obligation to use scientific methods and to think scientifically. Questionnaire-based surveys of the kind described here are clearly a long way from the ‘gold-standard’ randomized control trials to which Staats (2018) referred. However, they may be considered valid starting points from which to think about clinical or educational practice based on evidence rather than intuition (cf.…”

“…However, they may be considered valid starting points from which to think about clinical or educational practice based on evidence rather than intuition (cf. Staats, 2018).…”