Specialist in Group Work?

“What does it mean to be a specialist in group work?” As the editor of a journal named The Journal for Specialists in Group Work (JSGW), this has become an important question for me for the last four years or so. It is something that I had not questioned deeply before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic but saw as undisputed aspect of my reality. As a member of the Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW) I was a specialist, surrounded by other specialists, and each of us focused our lives and work around the groups we were a part of or created. We were also a group unto itself, and as “groupies” (the unofficial nickname of ASGW members) celebrated aspects of group throughout our lives and practice. How could anyone question “group work” or the specialist designation that followed those counted among our ranks?

The COVID-19 pandemic provided me a good deal of time to reflect and question, which is something I did across all areas of my life. One question that continued to come up for me, however, had to deal with something that had been an unquestioned and routine part of my academic life. Who is a specialist and, by extension, as we review, edit, and publish articles in our journal, how do we know we are holding true to the needs of our readership who expect to review our pages to deepen their specialist-level understandings of group work?

This has also appeared to be a hard question for many of the authors who submit to our journal, many of whom have provided us submissions that have spanned the spectrum of group work. Although I believe our journal’s “aims and scope” page provide some level of detail about how we define group work for the purposes of our journal, we periodically receive submissions from scholars across fields of education (i.e., in relation to teachers assigning tasks in groups to students in K-12 schools or in university settings), social psychology (e.g., in-group and out-group research), political science (i.e., explorations of conflict between two national groups or orientations), etc. that explore non-clinical/counseling forms of group work. As these submissions do not meet what I believe the journal’s intentions are for group work, I have found myself forced to provide desk rejections and comments to authors who send us these manuscripts that address other forms of group work. I always attempt to be kind (or as kind as one can be when providing a rejection disposition) and provide other options for these scholars to disseminate their work.

The other form of group work manuscripts that comes to our journal (and comes from scholars both within and outside of our counseling disciplines) involves research about groups, but the manuscripts themselves do not appear focused on the group under exploration (e.g., group dynamics, group leadership, group techniques, etc.). Research is the primary focus of these manuscripts, whereas the group itself appears to either serve as a secondary focus, or unaddressed element. Does research focused on something that happened in a group qualify for publication in JSGW? I would argue no, not necessarily. As a specialty journal, and flagship journal of ASGW, I would argue that only those manuscripts that feature the group (or group specific features, such as group leadership, group dynamics, group techniques, etc.) should qualify for publication. Research surrounding groups is important; however without knowing the features of the group being explored, our readership would not have enough information to adequately evaluate the research, as well as understand how reading that article will have implications for their own personal group practice, or future research endeavors. Said differently, this type of work would fail to have relevance to our readership. This is of course my own philosophy and could always easily change when I pass the baton as editor; however, I see the importance of recognizing the specific focus of our journal and its readership and believe a focus on anything less would be a disservice. The amount of these submissions, and the pull from prospective authors to our journal perhaps may lead us to a different tension, or crisis of identity: do we accept solid research surrounding, but not focused on groups, or do we continue to hold dear our commitments to the fuller and deeper exploration of the processes, as well as outcomes, of groups?

As I have alluded to above, I don’t feel as strong a tension as others may feel because I believe strong group research can and should still have a solid focus on the processes of group. I also question that without a strong focus on group processes when facilitating the group under exploration, is it a rigorous enough manuscript when solely focused on outcome? This has been debated in the past by other scholars (for example, see Burlingame et al., 2014), and am sensitive enough to provide allowances for meta-analyses that support our understandings of strength of evidence across a range of studies to help us to determine when an effective exists in the research to support the use of groups in certain conditions. Even with this consideration, I believe debate about processes versus outcome can serve as a false dichotomy: doesn’t process impact outcome? Wouldn’t it be artificial to separate the two?

As group workers, or as some may say, Specialists in Group Work, I believe it is our responsibility to promote the work of groups in our different professional capacities. To truly promote, and practice groups, we need to aware of (and consciously practice) our group processing skills to serve as effective group leaders and members. When we write about group, we cannot assume that all our readers will be specialists, or even regular group practitioners. We also should not assume that the processes that occur in one group, or with one group leader, would necessarily be the same when a different group is formed, or a different leader leads. These elements need to be drawn out of our writing, because as we institutionalize the knowledge we are gathering about groups when we publish in our journal, these will support our readership, including novice group leaders, as they begin to explore the exciting (but complex) terrain as a group leader. This knowledge and those techniques help us to train and support the next generation of specialists in group work, which I believe is our second most important responsibility (behind ethical and appropriate client care). I hope that as you consider disseminating your important work to our journal, you might take stock of some of these elements discussed above and ensure they are present in your writing. In the future, I would love if all prospective authors to our journal could ask themselves these two important questions before their next manuscript submission: “Am I a specialist in group work?” If so, then “how am I demonstrating my specialist expertise in the manuscript I am writing?”