Research in Group Work: Next Steps in the Research of Group Work

This issue is the last in a three-part special issue that explored research in group work. Part I provided an overview of different methodological issues one should consider in the exploration of group research. Part II provided deeper understandings in how one might apply different research methodologies, specifically multilevel modeling (Selig, Trott, & Lemberger, 2017), social network analysis (Lockhart, 2017), and participatory action research (Cook & Krueger-Henney, 2017), in conducting group research. Stroud and colleagues (2017) also provided a content analysis of research published in The Journal for Specialists in Group Work (JSGW) between 1998 and 2015, approximately the time since JSGW published their last special issue specific to group research.

Part III begins with an article by Shulman, who describes a categorical observation system that can be employed to analyze videos of group work sessions to explore the interactions that occur between group leader(s) and members, as well as across group member interactions. The system provides a way to observe and analyze the complex dynamics present in the interpersonal relationships present in the group, so that quantitative empirical analyses of group data can occur. This could provide further information to researchers, allowing for investigations of group process and practice, mediating variables, to the later impact on outcome variables. Shulman provides a very simple plan to classify data that could change the way we explore group dynamic variables and could lend itself to increased quantitative group work research in the future.

Moss, Pennamon, Springer, and Singh explore the utility of intergroup dialogue (IGD) in the field of counseling, and how group processes and leadership can be explored as potentially effective means of facilitating IGD processes. Using a framework of phenomenology, the authors present a way that researchers and group leaders can consider exploring group processes in IGD and how they can lead to understandings to both deepen the process of IGD, as well as multicultural explorations of group work.

Next, Boyle, Whittaker, Eyal, and McCarthy provide a content analysis of recent quantitative studies that have been published in JSGW. Of the 25 quantitative research studies found in the time period explored, 20 studies were focused around group members or group leaders (versus meta-analyses or instrument validation studies). The authors reported on the studies’ design and characteristics, while comparing those studies’ design characteristics and analyses to published best practices in this area. Although there was a range of rigor across the articles, many authors failed to meet important statistical assumptions in research group work. From their findings, the authors provide a set of recommendations for potential quantitative researchers in group work to follow, to ensure rigorous design and analysis for future studies in the journal.

Finally, Vereen and Bohecker also provide a content analysis of research and scholarship in the field of group work, this time focused on the 20 years since the previous JSGW special issue on research. Within their analysis, the authors were attentive to the themes found within the published scholarship, as well as methods employed by authors published in JSGW. Within their research, the authors asked three overarching questions: (1) have we attended to the gap between research and practice in group work; (2) has there been an increase in scope, sophistication, rigor and effectiveness of scholarship?; and (3) has there been an increase in international submissions to the journal? The authors present interesting findings exploring a snap shot of group literature over the course of 20 years. The unequal distribution of articles from different research traditions found by this particular study is perhaps not surprising knowing the history and traditions of our field, but all the more interesting when related to content analyses exploring shorter and more current time periods. It is important, however, to note the limited attention found paid to certain communities within group research, and the authors call for action in these important areas.

When we first conceived the special issue on research in group work, the plan was for a single-part issue. Upon discovery of the tremendous interest and fine quality of submissions, the special issue grew exponentially. We believe this not only reflects the burgeoning scholarship in group work as a whole, but also that it was driven by increased awareness of the need for more methodologically focused scholarship in group work as a whole. It is our hope that this three-part special issue can undergird ongoing focus in this area.

Themes and Next Steps

When reflecting on the entirety of the manuscripts received for the special issue, we identified some common themes identified by authors. One of the first themes that we noted was authors’ identification of a lack of rigor in some previously published articles in the field of group work. Scholars exploring quantitative methods noted the lack of attention of researchers into the complexity of group, and how issues related to the violation of independence assumption inherent in group work are often not addressed by researchers in designing their work (see Boyle et al. in this issue; McCarthy, Whittaker, Boyle, & Eyal, 2017; Selig et al., 2017). Boyle and colleagues (this issue) further identified researchers’ lack of attention to design effects and over-reliance on self-report measures as being other areas of concern within a bulk of currently published research. Future quantitative scholars are cautioned to review this article and consider how they might address these concerns in future research.

Qualitative researchers similarly purported that researchers may not be attending to the full complexity of groups, focusing enough on the process of the group (versus purely on study outcomes), and providing adequate voice to marginalized subjects. Rubel and Okech (2017) left us with a call to arms to ensure that when exploring qualitative subjects, greater attention be paid to methodological coherence with the research tradition being utilized, subjectivity of the author, adequate data, as well as intentional interpretation of the data so that participant experiences can be adequately woven into “concepts, theories, and manuscripts” (p. 80). They provided a cogent and helpful framework that qualitative researchers can utilize in both designing their studies, as well as reviewing their work, to ensure the data provided are robust and meet high quality standards in our field. Finally, Shannonhouse and colleagues (2017) noted the potential promise of mixed methods research design in group work, despite the lack of current articles in the field utilizing this work. Scholars have been asked to consider this very innovative design, which might support future group work research while attending to the complexity found in the group work environment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the manuscripts included in the three-part special issue on research in group work have laid a strong foundation for subsequent work, we noted a lack of scholarship exploring research related to the teaching of group work, as well as supervision of group work. These are two areas that are arguably incredibly important to the field of group work, as how else might we prepare future group workers to conduct effective practice with their groups. Similarly, how do we best supervise group workers, differently than counselors working solely with individual clients, to be prepared to provide intentional services that serve the needs of every group member, as well as the group-as-a-whole? As the multiple relationships present between instructor-group leader/student and supervisor/group leader are arguably complex, often made more so when the researcher is also part of the relational dyad or triad. Therefore, those roles and processes deserve specific attention to ensure thoughtful and ethical research might occur. Future scholars are encouraged to closely attend to these topics to ensure that they receive appropriate attention as the focus of or in the discussion, limitations, and implication sections of future research articles. While there is recent practice-based work on the supervision of group work (Luke & Goodrich, 2015a, 2015b), the time might be right to revisit the development of additional special issues on these topics that focus on the research in these areas.

Additionally, akin to how Shulman in Part III highlighted a novel usage of technology in group work research, we believe that there is a need for more representation in the group work research literature related to the contemporary infusion of technology into group work, group work training and supervision, and group work research. Moreover, group work researchers may want to consider the relationship between different group work structures and contexts and the methodological decisions made, as there has been little to no discussion of the potential reciprocal impact. Lastly, we observed that despite the role of professional organization and accreditation bodies in the training, practice, and professional development of group workers, the interface of these and other potential political forces were largely absent in the special issue. Some might argue that the absence is an appropriate separation of science and politics, but others who subscribe to the belief that all things, including research, are political may wonder how to interpret the lack of direct discussion. As such, we encourage ongoing dialogue about the complex and sometimes invisible insectionalities inherent in the research of group work.

CONCLUSION

As we conclude our work on this three-part special issue, we are filled with a mixture of gratitude, satisfaction, and hope. We want to extend our appreciation to those who were historically involved in the Emerging Scholar program within the Association of Specialists in Group Work, as their investment in and exchange of ideas about research in group work were the initial sparks for this work. We are also tremendously gratified in producing a meaningful compendium of scholarship that can frame the next steps in group work research and for the privilege to work alongside such dedicated scholars. Lastly, we are deeply hopeful about the future of research in group work. It is encouraging to witness the resurgence and agency on methodological issues in group work, and we cannot help but wonder if we are embarking on a renaissance of sorts.