This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 28 October 2014, At: 07:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal for Specialists in Group WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usgw20

Overcoming obstacles to the future development ofresearch on group workRichard L. Bednar a , Gerald Corey a d , Nancy J. Evans b , George M. Gazda a e , M. CarolePistole a e , Rex Stockton c & Floyd F. Robison a fa Comprehensive Clinic , Brigham Young University , Provo, Utahb Department of Counselor Education and College Student Personnel , Western IllinoisUniversity , Macombc Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology , Indiana University , Bloomingtond Human Services Program, California State University , Fullerlone College of Education, University of Georgia , Athensf Department of Psychology and Mental Health , University of Minnesota , DuluthPublished online: 31 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Richard L. Bednar , Gerald Corey , Nancy J. Evans , George M. Gazda , M. Carole Pistole , Rex Stockton& Floyd F. Robison (1987) Overcoming obstacles to the future development of research on group work, The Journal forSpecialists in Group Work, 12:3, 98-111, DOI: 10.1080/01933928708411759

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01933928708411759

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research

Overcoming Obstacles to the Future Development of

Research on Group Work Richard 1. Bednar

Gerald Corey Nancy J. Evans

George M. Gazda M. Carole Pistole

Rex Stockton Floyd F. Robison

A panel of nationally recognized experts in group counseling research, practice, and training discusses the major obstacles currently confront- ing the advancement of research on groups und suggests ways to improve the meaningfulness and validiry of future research. Also discussed are recommendations, prepared b y the Research Committee of rhe Associ- ation f o r Specialists in Group Work (ASGW), for implementing the pan- elists' suggestions.

The number of research investigations of group counseling techniques, processes, and outcomes has increased substantially during the past 15 years, but group research is in

a period of infancy compared to research in other social sciences (Stockton & Morran, 1982). Several writers (Bednar & Kaul, 1978; Dies, 1983a; Kaul & Bednar, 1986; Stock-

~~ ~~ ~~

Richard L . Bednar is director. Comprehensive Clinic. Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah. Nancy J . Evans is an assistant professor and coordinator of thr College Student Personnel Program in the Department of Counselor Ed- ucation and College Student Personnel, West- ern Illinois University. Macomb. Rex Stockton is a professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana Univer- .rity, Bloomington. Gerald Corey is a professor in the Human Services Program, California State UniversiQ at Fullerton. George M . Gazda is research professor of education and associate dean for research and M. Carole Pistole is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology. Both are in the College of Education. University of Georgia, Athens. Floyd F . Robison is an

98

assisrant professor in the Department of Psy- chology and Mental Health, University of Min- nesota, Duluth.

Members of the ASGW Research Committee were Linda A . Bond. consultant. Indiana De- partment of Education; Lawrence H . Gersreiri. assisrant professor. Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services. Ball State Universiry , Muncie. Indiana; Stephen Jenkins. assistant professor, Department of Counselor Education, University of Nevada. Reno; Diana Hulse-Killacky. assistant professor, Depart- ment of Counselor Education. University of Maine at Orono: Dennis Kivlighan. counselor. Counseling Center. University of Marvland. College Park; Rex Stockron: Nancy J . Evans; and Floyd F . Robison.

Journal f o r Specialists in Group Work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ton & Morran, 1982) have commented on the conceptual and methodological difficul- ties inherent in conducting research on groups. In contrast to one-on-one counseling rela- tionships, group outcomes result from com- plex interactions of member, leader. treat- ment, group process outcome. and other vari- ables, all of which are unique to each group under study. The relative contributions of these variables to the outcomes of group counseling experiences are difficult to identify in studies using traditional experimental methodologies. Moreover, the study of groups presents unique ethical and logistical considerations that may limit the types of groups studied, as well as treatments administered and control groups employed, when traditional experimental de- signs are used.

Because of these difficulties in studying counseling groups, the results of many stud- ies are dismissed by their consumers as triv- ial or unreflective of groups encountered.in practice. In turn. potential group researchers are often reluctant to conduct studies be- cause of their belief that their products will prove useless in enhancing understanding as to how groups are effective change agents or how group practice may be improved.

Despite many professionals’ disillusion- ment about the progress of group research, several suggestions have been advanced for adapting experimental methodologies to re- flect the interactions of group composition. treatment, and outcome variables. Most of these suggestions have not been reflected in recent research publications, however. and little has been written about how to encour- age or implement suggestions for improving group research.

During its 1985- I986 planning session, the Executive Board of the Association for Spe- cialists in Group Work (ASGW) reaffirmed the association’s commitment to improving the validity and utility of research on groups by (a) identifying the major obstacles that cur- rently limit the development of this research and (b) by taking systematic action to reduce those obstacles. To accomplish these goals, the ASGW Research Committee asked several nationally recognized experts in group coun-

September 1987

seling research, training, and practice to dis- cuss both current obstacles to the advancement of effective research and strategies that might be undertaken to eliminate or reduce those obstacles. This article is a report of their views and suggestions and includes several recom- mendations formulated by the Research Com- mittee for implementing the experts’ ideas at both the organizational and individual (e.g., practitioners, researchers, counselor educa- tors) levels.

METHOD

Selection of Respondents The Research Committee wanted to repre- sent the perspectives of group research, training, and practice in obtaining views on current problems and solutions related to the advancement of group research. The com- mittee also sought to identify individuals who are recognized nationally for their work in one or more of these areas and who could address the above issues competently, based on their actual experiences in conducting, evaluating, and using research. To make this task more manageable, the committee de- cided to select five individuals to participate in the project. The five professionals judged to best meet the above criteria were Richard L. Bednar. Gerald Corey, Nancy J . Evans, George M. Gazda, and Rex Stockton.

Richard L. Bednar has written several ar- ticles on the relationship of early group structuring to the subsequent development of therapeutic communications by counsel- ing and therapy group members who are at different levels of social risk-taking dispo- sition. He has been an incisive critic of the status of group research through his reviews (Bednar & Kaul, 1978; Bednar & Lawlis, 1971; Kaul & Bednar, 1986) and has offered many suggestions as to how research on groups can address the needs of practitioners and educators who train group workers. Dr. Bednar currently is working with Hebrew University on a project to promote the use of group theory and practice to improve Arab- Jewish relations in Israel.

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Nancy J. Evans has conducted several stud- ies on relationships between group processes and outcomes, which have appeared in the Jownal for S'ecjulkts in Group Work (JSG w) , the Journal of College Student Personnel, and Small Group Behavior. Also, she is a member of the ASGW Research Committee and was previously an editorial board member of the JSG W.

Gerald Corey is an internationally recog- Nzed counselor educator who, with his wife and colleague, Marianne Schneider-Corey, has Written several widely used textbooks on group and individual counseling. In addition to his teachmg, writing, and service activities, Cozy is an active group practitioner. His response reflected the perspective of counselor educa- tors and practitioners and addressed the often- cited problem of a gap between group research and practice.

George M. Gazda is past president of ASGW and of the Division of Counseling Psychology, American Psychological As- sociation. During the past 20 years, he has published numerous articles and books on group counseling processes and leadership. Most recently, his efforts have been devoted to development and evaluation of life skills training groups. M. Carole Pistole has been associated with Dr. Gazda on a number of his studies on group work.

Rex Stockton, a past president of ASGW, directs the Small Group Research Project, a large-scale program studying group leader- ship, treatment processes, and education of group counselors. He and his former students are fresuent contributors to JSGW, Small Group Behavior, Journal of Counseling Psychology, and the Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psy- chodrama and Sociometry.

Respondents' Task Each respondent was asked to address the following question: Based on your experi- ences as a researcher, educator, and prac- titioner, what are the most significant obstacles impeding the production of rele- vant, high quality group research at this time (these obstacles may be conceptual, meth-

odological, attitudinal, or any other type you believe remarkable)? Furthermore, what steps should be taken to eliminate or reduce the obstacles you identify?

RESPONSES

Richard L. Bednar In the past 10 years, my colleagues and I have had the good fortune to complete three major analyses of the literature on small groups (Bednar & Kaul, 1978; Bednar & Lawlis, 1971; Kaul & Bednar, 1986). The effort invested i n these projects has been both beneficial and professionally enlight- ening. We have read and pondered the mer- its of thousands of published and unpublished scientific reports on small group processes. The purpose of this response is to identify and summarize some major observations about the obstacles to the future develop- ment of group research. The interested reader can find a more complete discussion of these topics in Kaul and Bednar (1978), Bednar and Kaul (1978, 1979), and Kaul and Bed- nar (1986). This article is a review and syn- thesis of these earlier articles.

Any attempt to identify obstacles to the future development of small group research is not an easy or pleasant task. As virtually all skilled practitioners and researchers know, small group processes are highly complex phenomena that do not readily lend them- selves to simplistic interpretations or anal- yses. Further complicating the picture is that the very nature of scholarship on group pro- cesses is changing dramatically. Research methods are improving rapidly as are meth- ods of measurement and data analysis. De- spite the rapidity of these improvements, however, a careful reading of the group lit- erature does reveal some disturbing patterns that seem to limit unduly the significance of research efforts and that are retarding the orderly advancement of knowledge in the group disciplines.

The most important observation about the group literature is the accumulated evidence

Journal for Specialists in Group Work 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

indicating that group treatments do affect client improvement. It is regrettable that there is no research evidence suggesting why this im- provement takes place. A survey of more than four decades of research reveals an abundance of evidence suggesting that group treatments are associated with client improvement in a variety of settings and situations (Bednar & Kaul, 1978, 1979; Bednar & Lawlis, 1971; Campbell & Dunnett, 1968;Gibb, 1971; Kaul & Bednar, 1978; Parloff & Dies, 1977; Smith, 1975). Knowledge about the conditions that Seem to foster this improvement, however, is embarrassingly limited. Researchers know virtually nothing about such fundamental questions as (a) how group processes mediate change in individual clients, (b) how individ- ual clients influence group processes, and (c) what dimensions of psychological functioning are most amenable to change in small groups.

Even the most casual perusal of the group literature will not conceal the similarity be- tween conclusions suggested in contempo- rary group literature and the major conclusions suggested 20 and 30 years ago. Researchers have known for years that group treatments can be effective but still have virtually no understanding of the underlying principles that mediate this improvement. To state it briefly, researchers have essentially failed to advance knowledge in the last three decades despite inordinate improvements in research methods. Contemporary research efforts are addressing questions already answered while ignoring the more crucial issues plaguing the group disciplines. The following is a dis- cussion of the conceptual and methodolog- ical issues that seem to account for this fundamental lack of progress in the group disciplines.

Conceptual concerns. One of the primary problems for researchers is that group re- search has many of its conceptual origins in theories of individual psychotherapy, psy- chopathology, and personality development (Bednar, 1981). Basic concepts and as- sumptions about group processes are rarely based on careful observation of small groups. Instead, group researchers continue to bor- 'row and fail to modify concepts originating

from systems for and observations of indi- viduals. As a result, the primary conceptual ingredients guiding group research seem to lack goodness offit. Under these .-onditions, sophisticated statistical analyses and com- plex research designs cannot compensate for irrelevant or poorly defined conceptual vari- ables. The conceptual limitations of group work are among the major problems that must be resolved before any truly significant advances may be made in group research.

Two secondary concerns derive from this difficulty. First, chronic problems exist in the measurement and operationalization of the relevant group treatment variables. All too often there is a lack of correspondence between the conceptual meaning of terms and variables under investigation and the way they are experimentally measured. Concep- tually identifying the relevant treatment variables and then operationalizing them in a way that preserves the essential elements of the original concepts is one of the most important rash group researchers face.

Second, professionals in various disciplines of group work continue to conceptually isolate themselves from one another. These subdis- ciplines do not Seem inclined to acknowledge either the limitations of their own positions or the utility of other viewpoints. This intellec- tual posture fails to recognize, however, that various group models ax often based on dif- ferent units and levels of analysis. Some ap- proaches, for example, emphasize interpersonal events; others focus on intrapsychic processes or, perhaps, group dynamics. Each approach attempts to understand group psychotherapy from a slightly different perspective. By rec- ognizing and integrating specific benefits from each of these positions, a more comprehensive and valid theoretical model of group treatment may eventually evolve.

Methodological issues. Experimental de- sign and control problems exist in all forms of psychological research. Because of the complexity of group research, some of these methodological problems must be patiently accepted; others can be partially avoided, and some experimental error can be mini- mized by careful trade-offs between exper-

101 September 1987

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

imental methods and variables. Despite the logistical complexity of group research, some of the more common problems involved in the design and analysis of group research can and should be kept to a minimum.

The most frequent design of published group research allows the investigator(s) to determine the effects of a treatment variable (independent variable) on client improve- ment or group processes (dependent vari- ables). Multiple sources of group influences, as well as interactions among variables, are subsequently ignored or confounded. Me- diating or intervening variables between in- dependent and dependent variables are usually not considered. It is no longer reasonable or acceptable for researchers to ignore rela- tionships between treatment variables, in- tervening group processes, and different client outcomes in their research designs.

Finally, most investigators have tradition- ally defined statistical error variance in terms of individual deviations from the grand mean. A second source of statistical error, how- ever, may be operating in groups: a differ- ence within treatment groups. Interaction patterns that are unique to specific groups may be confounded with primary treatment variables. Woods (1980) provided evidence on the potential importance of this effect. By nesting treatment groups within treat- ment conditions, Woods found significant variability among groups within treatment conditions, indicating that different groups do respond in different ways to the same treatment conditions. These differences can most likely be attributed to factors such as group composition, interaction styles, and leader characteristics that are unique to each group. Few studies include such designs and analyses, leading to systematic overesti- mates of significant treatment effects.

Overcoming conceptual and methodolog- ical weaknesses. Suggestions to enhance group research are relatively evident from the preceding discussion, but warrant reit- eration. First, to enhance conceptual accu- racy, research efforts based on concepts in- digenous to group processes would greatly enhance the development of group theory.

I02

Rather than being based on theories of in- dividual psychotherapy, psychopathology, and personality development, group re- search needs to consider primary variables of groups. In addition, more careful efforts need to be made to conceptually define and operationalize the relevant treatment vari- ables, thereby preserving essential proper- ties of the original concepts.

With regard to design complexity, future research needs to include, define, and mea- sure the intervention and mediation vari- ables. Instead of simply establishing statistical relationships between an independent and dependent variable, relationships need to be established between (a) independent vari- ables, (b) mediating variables, and (c) de- pendent variables. By this process, multiple sources of influence in small groups and the interrelationships between these sources of influence can be identified.

Ignoring these fundamental conceptual, theoretical, and methodological limitations will lead to continuation of group research that answers only the research questions that have been answered before. We already know group treatments can be effective. Our next task is to explain why they are effective.

Nancy J. Evans In a 1983 editorial, Bob Conyne, the editor of the Journal for Specialists in Group Work, wrote: “JSGW is progressing nicely, but . . . its weakest showing is in the area of research and evaluation” (p. 58). My own experience as a member of the JSGW edi- torial board, a teacher of group work, and a consumer of group literature supports Co- nyne’s position. In response, 1 discuss ob- stacles impeding the production of high- quality group counseling research and sug- gest ways to eliminate or reduce those ob- stacles.

Obstacles to high-qualiry group research. Obstacles to effective group counseling re- search can be grouped into three categories: attitudinal, logistical, and methodological. 1 have listed attitudinal problems first be- cause I believe the reluctance of all coun-

Journal for Specialists in Group Work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

seling professionals, be they practitioners or academicians, to do any type of research is a major dilemma for the field. People enter the counseling profession because they want to be involved with people in a helping re- lationship, not because they want to con- ceptualize and conduct meaningful research studies. Most counseling professionals feel uncomfortable with the skills in statistics and research design that are needed to do re- search. They also question the relevance of research for the types of work they do and resist devoting time to an activity for which they are not rewarded.

Potential group researchers also face lo- gistical problems. Because one group rarely consists of the number of participants nec- essary to obtain an adequate sample size, the researchers must try to create an ade- quate number of groups with the same focus, led by counselors who use similar tech- niques. Group researchers also experience attrition rates among group members that can have deleterious effects on the validity of the results. Necessary controls are often unavailable, and the manipulation of vari- ables is questionable. Although the use of laboratory groups would overcome many of these problems, such analog research raises generalizability questions and limits the types of questions that can be asked.

A third problem faced by group re- searchers is that of methodology. Most counselors are trained in traditional labo- ratory research techniques and design. Such techniques tend not to work well when ap- plied to group counseling. Use of labora- tory procedures has led to investigation of rather trivial questions and has caused practitioners to question the meaning of the findings for their work. Criterion measures are also a problem; too often, self-report measures are the only measure, leaving the question of behavioral change unan- swered. Characteristics of group members, group leaders, and group process variables are rarely described in enough detail to de- termine what caused the outcomes re- ported. Perhaps most significant, few studies have developed out of a theoretical base,

nor is there an attempt to build or modify theory based on research findings.

Suggestions f o r improving group re- search. The attitudinal barriers surrounding group research are, of course, the hardest to address. I am convinced, however, that it is possible for counselors to overcome their fear of research and to develop an appreci- ation for its relevance in their work. Estab- lished researchers must do a better job of training and serving as mentors to counsel- ing professionals. Those of us who are en- gaged in research can involve colleagues and students in our work, so that they understand what is involved i n conducting an investi- gation from start to finish. This type of in- volvement is much less threatening than dissertation research, which carries an eval- uation component. Faculty members who conduct research might think of moving their research programs into agency settings and involving the staff in some projects. This strategy also makes the research effort seem more realistic to practitioners and might re- sult in findings of more relevance to the profession.

In addition, national and regional confer- ences should devote some time to training sessions in which the development of a re- search program is discussed in realistic and practical ways. Focus should be on field re- search, including evaluation, case study, and naturalistic research techniques. Sessions might be held to develop ideas for research studies and to discuss research in progress. Active researchers could serve as group leaders or mentors for such sessions. ASGW might also develop a list of resource persons willing to assist in developing specific types of group research projects.

Some of the logistical problems facing group researchers can be overcome by professional collaboration. One agency may not have enough participants for a study, but several agencies working together probably will. Conducting a study with groups located in several different agen- cies requires coordination and planning to ensure that treatments will be as similar as possible, but such activity can lead to more

September I987 103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

meaningful results. Use of naturally oc- curring comparison groups (e.g., behav- ioral versus psychodynamic treatment groups) can alleviate problems related to variable manipulation. Case studies of groups and naturalistic inquiry methods also have great potential for alleviating tradi- tional problems caused by logistics.

Alternative research techniques must be used if group researchers are to increase knowledge of group dynamics in a mean- ingful way. Naturalistic techniques open up the possibility of group process investiga- tions that simply cannot be conducted using traditional laboratory methods. Adequate measurement of the variables under consid- eration must also involve both self-report and behavioral methods.

Group researchers must do a better job of delineating the conditions that exist in the groups being explored. The characteristics of the group participants. group leaders, and the focus and activities of the group itself are important in determining the meaning of outcomes obtained. Longitudinal studies of group development and the relationship of process variables to specific outcomes must also be undertaken.

Programmatic research is crucial to the development of our field. Most studies on group counseling are “one-shot” efforts. The validity and general applicability of such studies are questionable. Researchers should be encouraged to select areas of investiga- tion and stick with them so that each study builds on the previous ones, resulting in a solid base of research on which to build theory. Theory, in turn, needs to guide re- search efforts.

The systematic attention being given to research by ASGW is a positive sign. The field of group counseling finally seems to be recognizing that it cannot progress until the interconnections between research, theory, and practice are acknowledged and encour- aged. ASGW has a responsibility for cre- ating conditions, such as those suggested in this article, to encourage collaboration among practitioners and researchers that will result in meaningful research activity.

I04

Gerald Corey

There is a gap between research and practice in group counseling, and it seems that bring- ing together these two perspectives involves overcoming some major obstacles. I discuss here a few of the problems I see in attempt- ing to integrate research and the practice of group work.

Many group practitioners report that re- search has only a moderate effect on what they actually do in groups. They often dis- miss research without weighing its poten- tial contributions. Because of these attitudes toward research, most group workers have not been willing to devote time to devising evaluative instruments as a part of their practice. It is possible, however, to make systematic observation and assessment a basic part of the practice of group work. Instead of thinking exclusively in terms of rigorous empirical research, group prac- titioners can begin to consider alternatives to traditional scientific methodology. One such alternative is evaluative research aimed at gathering and assessing data that can be of value in making decisions about pro- grams and in improving the quality of professional service (Dies, 1983a).

I agree with Dies that research and prac- tice do not have to be separate activities; they can be merged. “Effective clinicians in a sense must be clever researchers, and skillful researchers must be sensitive clini- cians. The two roles are not inherently in- compatible” (Dies, 1983a, pp. 24-25). Elsewhere, Dies (1983b) contended that too many practitioners believe that the gap be- tween research and practice in group work cannot be bridged, primarily because clini- cians view researchers as being concerned with trivial issues pertaining to the process and outcome of groups. Furthermore, em- pirical findings are seldom reported in a way that encourages clinicians to translate re- search into practice.

The following are my personal reflec- tions about some of the problems I see in bridging this gap between small group re- search and practice, problems that I find

Journal for Specialists in Group Work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

confront many counselor educators who otherwise would be willing to conduct re- search on groups. Although I value and attempt to keep up with research findings, I have not done empirical research with groups. Part of the reason for this, in my case, is that there is only so much time in any given year, and priorities must be set. As a professor, my university teaching load consists of 12 units each semester, includ- ing duties of coordinating an academic pro- gram. These tasks could be more than a full-time job; yet, in addition to this, my colleagues and I continue to write and re- vise textbooks, present papers at conven- tions, offer in-service workshops on groups, and conduct several personal-growth groups each year. There is no way that I can see to add the time that would be necessary to design and conduct empirical research on groups. Because I teach in an undergrad- uate human services program, i t is not pos- sible for me to rely on graduate students to assist in research projects. Furthermore, I have not had time to keep abreast of the methodological and technical advances i n research that would be needed for me to conduct or supervise research programs.

Although I am not engaged in empirical research, as a group practitioner and as a trainer and supervisor of group workers, I do make serious attempts to evaluate this group work. For example, for more than 10 years, my colleagues and I have co-led sev- eral 1 -week residential, personal-growth groups each summer. When we first began these groups, we administered both pretests and posttests to assess outcomes as well as conducting both individual and entire group follow-up sessions. We used several instru- ments and structured self-reporting ques- tionnaires to measure self-concept, levels of self-actualization, and changes in attitudes and values.

One shortcoming of small group research has been the reliance on inadequate or lim- ited measurement instruments (Stockton & Morran, 1982). We found that the instru- ments we used were too crude to measure

the subtle nature of the learning in these small groups. As a result, we came to rely more on self-reporting questionnaires de- signed to assess the process and outcomes of a group experience. We have continued the practice of evaluating our groups, pri- marily by reading the participants’ written evaluations of their group experience. We also schedule a follow-up group session to assess the values of the group experience. We are in good company with this practice, for Carl Rogers (1970) used self-reporting instruments in conducting follow-up studies to assess the outcomes of small groups led by himself and his associates. Rogers con- tended that the best method for understand- ing what goes on in groups is by using the self-report approach.

I agree with Stockton and Morran’s (1982) contention that the “group is a highly com- plicated interactional and multidimensional system, which does not neatly fit the param- eters of rigorous experimental control” (p. 38). I believe that it is extremely difficult to control most of the variables associated with counseling groups, because the group mem- bers, who also live in the real world, intro- duce many variables that pollute pure research. If we want to study specific group phenomena, we encounter a range of com- plexities. Leading groups is a skillful art that can be enhanced by a knowledge of current theory and research.

Dies (1983a) made a good point in his statement about bridging the gap between research and practice. He said that one way practitioners can do this is to begin to in- corporate instrumentation into their clinical work and to invite their research-oriented colleagues to collaborate with them in de- vising appropriate research instruments to investigate the processes and outcomes of the groups. I think there is considerable promise in working toward this type of col- laboration between colleagues with differing but mutually complementary perspectives. This direction seems to offer hope that re- search findings can be translated into the actual practice of group work.

September 1987 I05

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

George M. Gazda and M. Carole Pistole Although there is evidence that group coun- seling is effective, the group counseling profession has not yet been able to produce high-quality research consistently. In ac- tuality, such research has two value-based goals: (a) to map the truth with theory that is internally logical and contains principles that are valued for their ability to generate fruitful empirical studies and (b) to produce practical theory that is metaphorical in na- ture and of heuristic value in producing ef- fects with real people. The challenge for group counseling research is to generate theory from both of these value bases while simultaneously integrating the understand- ing derived from both. Within the profes- sion, this challenge is sometimes construed as a split between the researcher and the practitioner and their seemingly conflicting professional needs. Just as the empiricist’s enterprise requires building theory from bits of empirical evidence, the practitioner’s work involves a broader, richer enterprise-one that loses its essence and integrity when bro- ken into small, isolated bits of evidence.

In striving for high-quality research, in- vestigators seek to get at the richer, more unitary experience that occurs at the ex- periential level in groups through the meth- odology that serves the empiricist. With the advent of a rapidly developing im- provement in methodology and through the use of computer technology, perhaps re- searchers can now incorporate more sys- tematic and programmed research into their professional activity. By beginning with a sample of variables and continuing further research with these same variables, then overlapping them with new, added vari- ables, we can systematically and manage- ably en large the complexity of the empirically based theory.

Another means for helping to bypass ex- isting problems with group research is to combine qualitative and quantitative meth- ods. Because qualitative procedures permit a more intensive analysis, using this type

of design may help to integrate seemingly contradictory findings. Such an integration might eliminate the confusion that ensues from the inherent mixing of the group-as- a-unit with the individuals-within-the-group approaches. With this procedure, research- ers may also isolate important variables that have been imbedded in designs or per- haps not included as relevant to the design. Furthermore, using a combination of qual- itative and quantitative designs would per- mit researchers to focus more directly on specific clients with specific problems treated by specific techniques in specific settings. This would aid the simultaneous study of process and outcome while pre- serving the group’s integrity. More effec- tive theory building could then be obtained through meta-analysis techniques.

It would be useful if group counseling researchers could use the combining effect obtained through meta-analysis in actually conducting research. For instance, the cli- nician, who has available “real” groups, is in an ideal position to contribute to theoret- ical knowledge of “real” groups by repli- cating laboratory findings in the context of everyday life. The other side of the coop- erative coin is that the clinician’s applied theories can stimulate laboratory research and provide perspectives for interpreting data obtained through analog studies.

There are other ways that cooperation be- tween professionals can enhance the quality of research. Programmatic research involv- ing many different professionals using the same operational definitions would help to increase the crispness and clarity of research findings. In addition, if several professionals pooled their resources, it would be possible to obtain enough “groups” for a single re- search project to nest groups within condi- tions. In this way, the group would become the unit of analysis, and this procedure would change the level of abstraction used for gain- ing knowledge. For designs in which groups are nested within conditions, variables, such as the mechanics of change, that previously were difficult to study may yield to quan-

I06 Journal for Specialists in Group Work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

titative methods, particularly when en- hanced with computer technology.

One obstacle that has not been considered adequately in previous research is the dif- ficulty in having a group emerge from the collection of people who are arbitrarily brought together for research projects. Does the ease with which people form groups af- fect researchers’ ability to distinguish and scrutinize the variables that are important in personal change? With the aid of meta-anal- ysis, perhaps investigators can determine whether the purpose and the integrity of the group are variables that affect process, out- come, complexity, and richness.

Rex Stockton For the past decade, I have been involved in small group research and, along with my students, have developed a long-term pro- grammatic research effort. In time, several of these students became professors and we have continued to collaborate on research projects and reviews. Any perspective I have on this process has been greatly illuminated by the insights and work of my colleagues.

Our research has focused primarily on, but has not been limited to, the study of goal setting, cohesion, and self-disclosure by group leaders and members, and exchange of feed- back. Also, from time to time, we have con- ducted thorough and systematic literature reviews to both understand the current find- ings and to chart our own course of research, based on what was known and not yet known in the field. Several of these have been pub- lished, and I draw particularly from two of them (Morran & Stockton, 1985; Stockton & Morran, 1982).

Lack of collaboration between research- ers and practitioners. Lack of collaboration between group practitioners and investiga- tors remains a problem in group work, de- spite increased awareness of the situation. Group psychotherapy and therapeutic group research have developed side by side with remarkable independence. Furthermore, re- searchers and practitioners often lack an ap- preciation for the contributions the other can

September 1987

make to both the conceptual and the meth- odological aspects of group research. Prac- titioners often view research as irrelevant to clinical practice, whereas researchers often lack an appreciation for what can be learned from the richness of clinical information. This is unlikely to change until these two sides develop increased mutual respect for what each can offer.

Challenges to researchers. Investigators who study small groups face a host of chal- lenges that are related to studying both the independent and dependent variables. With the individual differences among group members and leaders and the interactive na- ture of the many variables involved, exper- imental or statistical control is an enormous challenge to the group researcher. Some progress, however, can be made in meeting these challenges.

First, few researchers provide adequate information on leader and member vari- ables. Demographic characteristics of lead- ers and members are often unreported; such leader variables as training, cognitive style, level of experience, and personality char- acteristics also have been neglected. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to gen- eralize the findings or to replicate studies with any confidence. At the least, this prob- lem could be kept to a minimum if more descriptive data were provided about the group and how it was conducted than has been done in the past.

Second, there is a similar lack of clarity in reporting the specific kind of group treat- ment used. More specific statements regard- ing the treatment conditions and how they were operationalized would be enormously helpful in clearing up this problem.

Third, little attention is currently given to the interactional process dimensions of groups. Not only has there been little study of group process, but few researchers in- clude even descriptive data about the process dimensions of the groups they studied. In- creased attention is needed in the area of the process dimensions of group work, includ- ing both the variables that affect process and the variables that are affected by it.

107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Fourth, group research efforts meet with an unusually large number and variety of confounding variables. Unfortunately, ran- dom selection and assignment of group members do not provide adequate control of these variables in small group research be- cause of the number and complexity of vari- ables that may covary with experimental treatment conditions. Descriptive data would be helpful here, but statistical control (e.g., through analysis of covariance) would be even more useful.

Fifth, and a related concern, is the choice of the unit of analysis for statistical proce- dures. Because group membership is an in- teractive and interpersonal experience, with members influencing one another's treat- ment and outcome, the unit of analysis is an important issue that will require creative so- lutions. The goal of these solutions should be to establish rigorous statistical design re- quirements and to capture the flavor and complexity of the group as well.

Sixth, because of the enormous complex- ity of studying group phenomena, with their many interacting elements, many studies are conducted in laboratory settings with sim- ulated group conditions or using analog groups that only partly replicate the condi- tions of naturally occurring therapeutic groups. Although laboratory settings and an- alog studies can lend a degree of control that is difficult or impossible to obtain in real- life counterparts, they may lead to findings that have limited external validity and ap- plicability to clinical settings.

Seventh, the study of variables of interest is vastly complicated by the lack of adequate available instruments. Instruments that are appropriate for the study of individual treat- ment and outcome are often inappropriate for group research, and the available instru- ments for group work do not measure the vast number of dimensions that are of in- terest. Greater effort needs to be put into developing reliable and valid instruments that can adequately assess the dimensions of group work.

Eighth, few studies include follow-up contacts with clients to assess the long-range

108

effect of the group experience for the indi- vidual. In most instances, measurement of outcome has involved the measurement of subjective and immediate responses at ter- mination of the group rather than the mea- surement of objective, long-term behavioral change. Some form of behavior rating scale, administered at an appropriate interval after the termination of the group, would be a valuable addition to the outcome measure- ment that is most often done at this time.

Ninth, investigators in group work might do well to incorporate alternative analytical approaches to those that are currently used. For example, other areas of inquiry increas- ingly involve naturalistic methods that could be used easily in the small group situation. In addition, more advanced statistical tech- niques might also be used to great advan- tage, especially as investigators try to account for the many variables interacting within the group. For example, canonical correlation analysis would allow the researcher to look at the reciprocal influence of multiple leader variables on group process variables. Other procedures such as multiple regression and multivariate analysis of variance, which are little used now, are also potentially valuable tools for the group researcher.

Finally, when one looks at the field of small group research, one too frequently finds scattered, individual studies that cannot be conceptually linked together into a coherent whole. To date, too little has been done to- ward developing systematic follow-through on questions of concern. An increase in the number of progressive research programs, in which small-scale studies can be com- bined to accumulate evidence toward the major questions in the field, would be most beneficial.

Although the task here has been to focus on the obstacles to progress in this field, researchers may also find it useful to reframe the issue an . ' ' '- of these as challenges. From this F e, the literature is filled with studie Je successfully met one or more o hallenges and have ad- vanced o w Kiiowledge of small group dy- namics. We can make progress toward

Journal for Specialists in Group Work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

understanding the effectiveness of small groups by facing the obstacles and meeting the challenges that face us as researchers.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The six respondents cited several similar conceptual, methodological, and attitudinal obstacles to the progress of group counseling research. Reducing or eliminating these ob- stacles will require a commitment among researchers and other group work profes- sionals to (a) improve conceptualizations of variables studied in relation to groups; (b) use research designs and methods sensitive to the interactions among leader, member, and treatment variables on observed out- comes; (c) develop technically sound, eco- logically valid measures of dependent, independent, and moderator variables; and (d) improve reporting of the characteristics of treatment and control groups that are stud- ied and focus on the applications of research findings. Furthermore, the respondents noted that, for these changes in research methods to occur, action may be required to promote more positive attitudes toward research among professionals, along with greater coopera- tion in conducting studies among profes- sionals in various subspecialties of group work.

After reviewing the respondents' com- ments and suggestions, the Research Com- mittee formulated several recommendations for action to improve the quality of future research. These recommendations are in- tended for consideration by professional or- ganizations that promote group work (e.g., ASGW), training programs that educate group workers, and individual professionals active in group research, training, or practice. These recommendations include the following:

1 . Several respondents called for better definitions of variables studied in relation to groups. The clarification of those constructs will require a systematic, large-scale, col- laborative effort by professionals who work with groups in various settings for various

September 1987

purposes. One way to clarify the meanings of commonly used constructs is for profes- sional organizations to standardize their meanings. Professional organizations for group workers might establish one or more joint committees to standardize the concep- tual definitions of variables that are used in group work research and encourage inves- tigators to define these variables in the same way in different studies. Undoubtedly, any effort to standardize definitions will en- counter disagreement among professionals.

An example of this type of standardization may be found, however, in the American Psychiatric Association's 30-year project to standardize diagnostic nomenclature, cur- rently found in the third edition of the Di- agnostic and Statistical Manual (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). Although these operational definitions of psychopa- thology constructs have been criticized by some clinicians, the standardization has al- lowed those constructs to be interpreted con- sistently when used in many studies. A similar interorganizational effort to standardize def- initions of variables associated with groups would require long-term organizational commitments; yet, the benefits of the vari- able being defined consistently in the liter- ature would promote the meaningfulness of that literature to consumers.

2. ASGW and other professional orga- nizations can encourage the use of innova- tive research techniques and instrumentation by sponsoring studies in which they are used. The Research Committee is currently inves- tigating strategies to encourage the devel- opment and application of qualitative and case study methods, including establishment of a separate category of the association's annual Research Award, for which submis- sions using such methods would be consid- ered. Other strategies could include offering grants to proposed studies in which research- ers would use innovative research methods, try out innovative instrumentation, or de- velop innovative data collection systems.

3. The respondents called for increased collaboration among researchers and prac- titioners in conducting research that is mean-

109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

ingful to professionals in both arenas. ASGW and other professional organizations might take action to foster collaborative research. Such actions might include funding research proposals for research involving collabora- tive efforts of research specialists and prac- titioners or of professionals from different subspecialties of group work. Likewise, preference might be accorded to proposed research presentations at the annual AACD convention that demonstrate collaboration among professionals across the profession.

4. Efforts to increase the production of high-quality studies that use nontraditional designs and methods must involve the co- operation of journal review boards. Many researchers now believe that studies with tra- ditional experimental designs are evaluated more favorably than are qualitative or case studies, regardless of the merits of the latter types of studies. If researchers are to commit themselves to using qualitative methods in their studies of groups, the editorial boards of major journals must demonstrate a com- mitment to publishing these studies, based on their quality rather than simply on choice of design.

5. Training programs have an important role in promoting favorable attitudes toward group research and in providing students with skills to conduct both quantitative and qual- itative studies. Part of ASGW’s efforts to establish preparatory standards for group workers should include course work and projects that provide training not only i n tra- ditional experimental methods, but also naturalistic case study and single-case meth- odologies. Moreover, training programs can encourage positive student attitudes toward research through direct education and fac- ulty-student collaboration on studies of groups. Stockton and Hulse (1983) noted that the degree to which faculty members express favorable attitudes toward the ben- efits of research and involve students in their research activities will determine whether or not students adopt similar positive attitudes when they complete their training.

The above recommendations are intended to stimulate ideas for enhancing the devel-

opment of group research by ASGW mem- bers and other professionals who work with groups. Perhaps the recommendations will also lead to the formulation of standards for evaluating proposed and published research. If research on groups is to provide mean- ingful and useful contributions to an under- standing of “what works with groups and why,” group workers, their training pro- grams, and their professional associations must collaborate to determine the most pro- ductive means of resolving the ambiguities of group counseling research.

REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diag-

nostic and statistical manual of mental disor- ders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bednar, R.L. (1980). The psychological devel- opment of group theory fixation. Contempo- rary Psychology, 25, 167-168.

Bednar, R.L., & Kaul, T.J. (1978). Experiential group research: Current perspectives. In S.L. Garfield & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An em- pirical analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 769-815). New York: Wiley.

Bednar, R.L. , & Kaul, T.J. (1979). Experiential group research: What never happened. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1 1 , 311-319.

Bednar, R.L., & Lawlis, F. (1971). Empirical research in group psychotherapy. In A.E. Ber- gin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psy- chotherapy and behavior change (pp. 8 12-838). New York: Wiley.

Campbell, J.P., & Dunnette, M.D. (1968). Ef- fectiveness of T-group experience in manage- rial training and development. Psychological Bulletin. 70, 73-104.

Conyne, R.K. (1983). Sounds good, but does it work? Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 8. 58.

Dies, R.R. (1983a). Bridging the gap between research and practice in group psychotherapy. In R.R. Dies & R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Ad- vances in group psychotherapy: Integrating re- search and practice (American Group Psy- chotherapy Association Monograph Series) (pp. 1-26). New York: International Universities Press.

Dies, R .R . (1983b). Clinical implications of re- search on leadership to short-term group psy-

IIO Journal Jor Specialists in Group Work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

chotherapy. In R.R. Dies & R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy: In- tegrating research and practice (American Group Psychotherapy Association Monograph Series) (pp. 27-28). New York: International Universities Press.

Gibb, J.R. (1971). The effects of human relations training. In A.E. Bergin & S.L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 839-862). New York: Wiley.

Kaul, T.J., & Bednar, R.L. (1978). Concep- tualizing group research: A preliminary anal- ysis. Small Group Behavior, 9, 173-191.

Kaul, T.J., & Bednar, R.L. (1986). Experimental group research: Results, questions and sugges- tions. In S.L. Garfield & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (3rd ed.) (pp. 671-714). New York: Wiley.

Morran, D.K., & Stockton, R. (1985). Perspec- tives on group research programs. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 10, 186-191.

Parloff, M.B., & Dies, R.R. (1977). Group psy- chotherapy outcome research 1966-1975. In- ternational Journal of Group Psychotherapy. 27, 281-320.

Rogers, C.R. (1970). Carl Rogers on encounter groups. New York: Harper & Row.

Smith, P.B. (1975). Are there adverse effects of sensitivity training? Journal of Humanistic

Stock, D. (1964). A survey of research on T- groups. In L.P. Bradford, J.E. Gibb, & U.D. Benne (Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method: Innovation in reeducation (pp. 395- 441). New York: Wiley.

Stockton, R., & Hulse, D. (1983). Use of re- search teams to enhance competence in coun- seling research. Counselor Education and Supervision, 22 , 303-3 10.

Stockton, R., & Morran, D.K. (1982). Review and perspective of critical dimensions in ther- apeutic small group research. In G.M. Gazda (Ed.), Basic approaches to group psychother- apy and group counseling (3rd ed.) (pp. 37- 83). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Woods, M. (1980). Relevance, activity, and in- termember familiarity as parameters of group structure: Effects on early group development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Psychology, 15, 29-47.

September 1987

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014