This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]

On: 28 October 2014, At: 07:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa 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 Work

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usgw20

Overcoming obstacles to the future development of

research on group work
a

Richard L. Bednar , Gerald Corey

Pistole
a

a e

a d

, Nancy J. Evans , George M. Gazda

, Rex Stockton & Floyd F. Robison

a e

, M. Carole

a f

Comprehensive Clinic , Brigham Young University , Provo, Utah

Department of Counselor Education and College Student Personnel , Western Illinois

University , Macomb
c

Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology , Indiana University , Bloomington

Human Services Program, California State University , Fullerlon

College of Education, University of Georgia , Athens

Department of Psychology and Mental Health , University of Minnesota , Duluth

Published 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 for
Specialists 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) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

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 confronting 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 Association f o r Specialists in Group Work (ASGW),for implementing the panelists' 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
~~

~~

~~

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 Education and College Student Personnel, Western 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

a period of infancy compared to research in

other social sciences (Stockton & Morran,
1982). Several writers (Bednar & Kaul, 1978;
Dies, 1983a; Kaul & Bednar, 1986; Stockassisrant professor in the Department of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Minnesota, Duluth.
Members of the ASGW Research Committee
were Linda A . Bond. consultant. Indiana Department 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, Department 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

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

ton & Morran, 1982) have commented on

the conceptual and methodological difficulties inherent in conducting research on groups.
In contrast to one-on-one counseling relationships, group outcomes result from complex interactions of member, leader. treatment, group process outcome. and other variables, 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 designs are used.
Because of these difficulties in studying
counseling groups, the results of many studies are dismissed by their consumers as trivial or unreflective of groups encountered.in
practice. In turn. potential group researchers
are often reluctant to conduct studies because 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 disillusionment about the progress of group research,
several suggestions have been advanced for
adapting experimental methodologies to reflect 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 encourage or implement suggestions for improving
group research.
During its 1985- I986 planning session, the
Executive Board of the Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW) reaffirmed
the associations commitment to improving
the validity and utility of research on groups
by (a) identifying the major obstacles that currently 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 counSeptember 1987

seling research, training, and practice to discuss 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 recommendations formulated by the Research Committee for implementing the experts ideas at
both the organizational and individual (e.g.,
practitioners, researchers, counselor educators) levels.

METHOD
Selection of Respondents
The Research Committee wanted to represent the perspectives of group research,
training, and practice in obtaining views on
current problems and solutions related to the
advancement of group research. The committee 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 decided 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 articles on the relationship of early group
structuring to the subsequent development
of therapeutic communications by counseling and therapy group members who are at
different levels of social risk-taking disposition. 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 ArabJewish relations in Israel.
99

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

Nancy J. Evans has conducted several studies on relationships between group processes
and outcomes, which have appeared in the
Jownal for S'ecjulkts in Group Work (JSGw),
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 recogNzed 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 educators and practitioners and addressed the oftencited 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 Association. 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 leadership, 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, Psychodrama and Sociometry.

Respondents' Task
Each respondent was asked to address the
following question: Based on your experiences as a researcher, educator, and practitioner, what are the most significant
obstacles impeding the production of relevant, high quality group research at this time
(these obstacles may be conceptual, meth100

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 enlightening. We have read and pondered the merits 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 development 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 Bednar (1986). This article is a review and synthesis 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 themselves to simplistic interpretations or analyses. Further complicating the picture is that
the very nature of scholarship on group processes is changing dramatically. Research
methods are improving rapidly as are methods of measurement and data analysis. Despite the rapidity of these improvements,
however, a careful reading of the group literature 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

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

indicating that group treatments do affect client

improvement. It is regrettable that there is no
research evidence suggesting why this improvement 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 individual 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 between conclusions suggested in contemporary 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 discussion of the conceptual and methodological 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 research has many of its conceptual origins in
theories of individual psychotherapy, psychopathology, and personality development
(Bednar, 1981). Basic concepts and assumptions 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
September 1987

from systems for and observations of individuals. As a result, the primary conceptual
ingredients guiding group research seem to
lack goodness offit. Under these .-onditions,
sophisticated statistical analyses and complex research designs cannot compensate for
irrelevant or poorly defined conceptual variables. 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. Conceptually 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 subdisciplines do not Seem inclined to acknowledge
either the limitations of their own positions or
the utility of other viewpoints. This intellectual posture fails to recognize, however, that
various group models a
x often based on different units and levels of analysis. Some approaches, 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 recognizing 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 design 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 minimized by careful trade-offs between exper101

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

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 improvement or group processes (dependent variables). Multiple sources of group influences,
as well as interactions among variables, are
subsequently ignored or confounded. Mediating or intervening variables between independent and dependent variables are usually
not considered. It is no longer reasonable or
acceptable for researchers to ignore relationships between treatment variables, intervening group processes, and different client
outcomes in their research designs.
Finally, most investigators have traditionally defined statistical error variance in terms
of individual deviations from the grand mean.
A second source of statistical error, however, may be operating in groups: a difference 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 treatment 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 overestimates of significant treatment effects.
Overcoming conceptual and methodological weaknesses. Suggestions to enhance
group research are relatively evident from
the preceding discussion, but warrant reiteration. First, to enhance conceptual accuracy, research efforts based on concepts indigenous to group processes would greatly
enhance the development of group theory.
I02

Rather than being based on theories of individual psychotherapy, psychopathology,

and personality development, group research needs to consider primary variables
of groups. In addition, more careful efforts
need to be made to conceptually define and
operationalize the relevant treatment variables, thereby preserving essential properties of the original concepts.
With regard to design complexity, future
research needs to include, define, and measure the intervention and mediation variables. Instead of simply establishing statistical
relationships between an independent and
dependent variable, relationships need to be
established between (a) independent variables, (b) mediating variables, and (c) dependent 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 editorial board, a teacher of group work, and
a consumer of group literature supports Conynes position. In response, 1 discuss obstacles impeding the production of highquality group counseling research and suggest ways to eliminate or reduce those obstacles.
Obstacles to high-qualiry group research.
Obstacles to effective group counseling research can be grouped into three categories:
attitudinal, logistical, and methodological.
1 have listed attitudinal problems first because I believe the reluctance of all counJournal for Specialists in Group Work

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

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 relationship, not because they want to conceptualize and conduct meaningful research
studies. Most counseling professionals feel
uncomfortable with the skills in statistics and
research design that are needed to do research. 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 logistical problems. Because one group rarely
consists of the number of participants necessary to obtain an adequate sample size,
the researchers must try to create an adequate number of groups with the same focus,
led by counselors who use similar techniques. 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 variables 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 researchers is that of methodology. Most
counselors are trained in traditional laboratory research techniques and design. Such
techniques tend not to work well when applied to group counseling. Use of laboratory 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 unanswered. Characteristics of group members,
group leaders, and group process variables
are rarely described in enough detail to determine what caused the outcomes reported. Perhaps most significant, few studies
have developed out of a theoretical base,
September I987

nor is there an attempt to build or modify

theory based on research findings.
Suggestions f o r improving group research. 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 appreciation for its relevance in their work. Established researchers must do a better job of
training and serving as mentors to counseling professionals. Those of us who are engaged in research can involve colleagues and
students in our work, so that they understand
what is involved i n conducting an investigation from start to finish. This type of involvement is much less threatening than
dissertation research, which carries an evaluation 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 result in findings of more relevance to the
profession.
In addition, national and regional conferences should devote some time to training
sessions in which the development of a research program is discussed in realistic and
practical ways. Focus should be on field research, 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 agencies requires coordination and planning to
ensure that treatments will be as similar as
possible, but such activity can lead to more
103

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

meaningful results. Use of naturally occurring comparison groups (e.g., behavioral 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 traditional problems caused by logistics.
Alternative research techniques must be
used if group researchers are to increase
knowledge of group dynamics in a meaningful way. Naturalistic techniques open up
the possibility of group process investigations that simply cannot be conducted using
traditional laboratory methods. Adequate
measurement of the variables under consideration 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 investigation 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 research 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 encouraged. ASGW has a responsibility for creating 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 bringing together these two perspectives involves
overcoming some major obstacles. I discuss
here a few of the problems I see in attempting to integrate research and the practice of
group work.
Many group practitioners report that research has only a moderate effect on what
they actually do in groups. They often dismiss research without weighing its potential 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 practitioners 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 programs and in improving the quality of
professional service (Dies, 1983a).
I agree with Dies that research and practice 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 clinicians. The two roles are not inherently incompatible (Dies, 1983a, pp. 24-25).
Elsewhere, Dies (1983b) contended that too
many practitioners believe that the gap between research and practice in group work
cannot be bridged, primarily because clinicians view researchers as being concerned
with trivial issues pertaining to the process
and outcome of groups. Furthermore, empirical findings are seldom reported in a way
that encourages clinicians to translate research into practice.
The following are my personal reflections about some of the problems I see in
bridging this gap between small group research and practice, problems that I find
Journal for Specialists in Group Work

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

confront many counselor educators who

otherwise would be willing to conduct research 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, including duties of coordinating an academic program. These tasks could be more than a
full-time job; yet, in addition to this, my
colleagues and I continue to write and revise textbooks, present papers at conventions, 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 undergraduate human services program, it is not possible 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 several 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 instruments and structured self-reporting questionnaires 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 limited measurement instruments (Stockton &
Morran, 1982). We found that the instruments we used were too crude to measure
September 1987

the subtle nature of the learning in these

small groups. As a result, we came to rely
more on self-reporting questionnaires designed to assess the process and outcomes
of a group experience. We have continued
the practice of evaluating our groups, primarily 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 contended that the best method for understanding what goes on in groups is by using the
self-report approach.
I agree with Stockton and Morrans (1982)
contention that the group is a highly complicated interactional and multidimensional
system, which does not neatly fit the parameters 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 members, who also live in the real world, introduce many variables that pollute pure
research. If we want to study specific group
phenomena, we encounter a range of complexities. 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 incorporate instrumentation into their clinical
work and to invite their research-oriented
colleagues to collaborate with them in devising appropriate research instruments to
investigate the processes and outcomes of
the groups. I think there is considerable
promise in working toward this type of collaboration between colleagues with differing
but mutually complementary perspectives.
This direction seems to offer hope that research findings can be translated into the
actual practice of group work.
I05

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

George M. Gazda
and M. Carole Pistole
Although there is evidence that group counseling is effective, the group counseling
profession has not yet been able to produce
high-quality research consistently. In actuality, 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 nature and of heuristic value in producing effects with real people. The challenge for
group counseling research is to generate
theory from both of these value bases while
simultaneously integrating the understanding derived from both. Within the profession, this challenge is sometimes construed
as a split between the researcher and the
practitioner and their seemingly conflicting
professional needs. Just as the empiricists
enterprise requires building theory from bits
of empirical evidence, the practitioners work
involves a broader, richer enterprise-one
that loses its essence and integrity when broken into small, isolated bits of evidence.
In striving for high-quality research, investigators seek to get at the richer, more
unitary experience that occurs at the experiential level in groups through the methodology that serves the empiricist. With
the advent of a rapidly developing improvement in methodology and through the
use of computer technology, perhaps researchers can now incorporate more systematic 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 variables, we can systematically and manageably e n l a r g e t h e complexity of the
empirically based theory.
Another means for helping to bypass existing problems with group research is to
combine qualitative and quantitative methods. Because qualitative procedures permit
a more intensive analysis, using this type
I06

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-asa-unit with the individuals-within-the-group
approaches. With this procedure, researchers may also isolate important variables
that have been imbedded in designs or perhaps not included as relevant to the design.
Furthermore, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative designs would permit 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 preserving the groups integrity. More effective 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 clinician, who has available real groups, is
in an ideal position to contribute to theoretical knowledge of real groups by replicating laboratory findings in the context of
everyday life. The other side of the cooperative coin is that the clinicians applied
theories can stimulate laboratory research and
provide perspectives for interpreting data
obtained through analog studies.
There are other ways that cooperation between professionals can enhance the quality
of research. Programmatic research involving 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 research project to nest groups within conditions. In this way, the group would become
the unit of analysis, and this procedure would
change the level of abstraction used for gaining 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 quanJournal for Specialists in Group Work

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

titative methods, particularly when enhanced with computer technology.

One obstacle that has not been considered
adequately in previous research is the difficulty 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 affect researchers ability to distinguish and
scrutinize the variables that are important in
personal change? With the aid of meta-analysis, perhaps investigators can determine
whether the purpose and the integrity of the
group are variables that affect process, outcome, 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 programmatic 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 feedback. Also, from time to time, we have conducted thorough and systematic literature
reviews to both understand the current findings 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 published, and I draw particularly from two of
them (Morran & Stockton, 1985; Stockton
& Morran, 1982).
Lack of collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Lack of collaboration
between group practitioners and investigators remains a problem in group work, despite increased awareness of the situation.
Group psychotherapy and therapeutic group
research have developed side by side with
remarkable independence. Furthermore, researchers and practitioners often lack an appreciation for the contributions the other can
September 1987

make to both the conceptual and the methodological aspects of group research. Practitioners 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 challenges that are related to studying both the
independent and dependent variables. With
the individual differences among group
members and leaders and the interactive nature of the many variables involved, experimental 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 variables. Demographic characteristics of leaders and members are often unreported; such
leader variables as training, cognitive style,
level of experience, and personality characteristics also have been neglected. This
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to generalize the findings or to replicate studies
with any confidence. At the least, this problem 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 treatment used. More specific statements regarding 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 include even descriptive data about the process
dimensions of the groups they studied. Increased attention is needed in the area of the
process dimensions of group work, including both the variables that affect process and
the variables that are affected by it.
107

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

Fourth, group research efforts meet with

an unusually large number and variety of
confounding variables. Unfortunately, random selection and assignment of group
members do not provide adequate control of
these variables in small group research because of the number and complexity of variables 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 procedures. Because group membership is an interactive and interpersonal experience, with
members influencing one another's treatment and outcome, the unit of analysis is an
important issue that will require creative solutions. The goal of these solutions should
be to establish rigorous statistical design requirements and to capture the flavor and
complexity of the group as well.
Sixth, because of the enormous complexity of studying group phenomena, with their
many interacting elements, many studies are
conducted in laboratory settings with simulated group conditions or using analog
groups that only partly replicate the conditions of naturally occurring therapeutic
groups. Although laboratory settings and analog studies can lend a degree of control that
is difficult or impossible to obtain in reallife counterparts, they may lead to findings
that have limited external validity and applicability 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 treatment and outcome are often inappropriate
for group research, and the available instruments for group work do not measure the
vast number of dimensions that are of interest. 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 individual. In most instances, measurement of
outcome has involved the measurement of
subjective and immediate responses at termination of the group rather than the measurement 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 measurement 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 increasingly involve naturalistic methods that could
be used easily in the small group situation.
In addition, more advanced statistical techniques might also be used to great advantage, 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 toward developing systematic follow-through
on questions of concern. An increase in the
number of progressive research programs,
in which small-scale studies can be combined 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 advanced o w Kiiowledge of small group dynamics. We can make progress toward
'

Journal for Specialists in Group Work

understanding the effectiveness of small

groups by facing the obstacles and meeting
the challenges that face us as researchers.

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

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 obstacles will require a commitment among
researchers and other group work professionals 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 outcomes; (c) develop technically sound, ecologically valid measures of dependent,
independent, and moderator variables; and
(d) improve reporting of the characteristics
of treatment and control groups that are studied 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 cooperation in conducting studies among professionals in various subspecialties of group
work.
After reviewing the respondents' comments and suggestions, the Research Committee formulated several recommendations
for action to improve the quality of future
research. These recommendations are intended for consideration by professional organizations 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, collaborative 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 professional organizations to standardize their
meanings. Professional organizations for
group workers might establish one or more
joint committees to standardize the conceptual definitions of variables that are used in
group work research and encourage investigators to define these variables in the same
way in different studies. Undoubtedly, any
effort to standardize definitions will encounter 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, currently found in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (American
Psychiatric Association, 1980). Although
these operational definitions of psychopathology constructs have been criticized by
some clinicians, the standardization has allowed those constructs to be interpreted consistently when used in many studies. A similar
interorganizational effort to standardize definitions of variables associated with groups
would require long-term organizational
commitments; yet, the benefits of the variable being defined consistently in the literature would promote the meaningfulness of
that literature to consumers.
2. ASGW and other professional organizations can encourage the use of innovative research techniques and instrumentation
by sponsoring studies in which they are used.
The Research Committee is currently investigating strategies to encourage the development and application of qualitative and
case study methods, including establishment
of a separate category of the association's
annual Research Award, for which submissions using such methods would be considered. Other strategies could include offering
grants to proposed studies in which researchers would use innovative research methods,
try out innovative instrumentation, or develop innovative data collection systems.
3. The respondents called for increased
collaboration among researchers and practitioners in conducting research that is mean109

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

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 collaborative efforts of research specialists and practitioners 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 cooperation of journal review boards. Many
researchers now believe that studies with traditional 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 commitment 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 qualitative studies. Part of ASGWs efforts to
establish preparatory standards for group
workers should include course work and
projects that provide training not only i n traditional experimental methods, but also
naturalistic case study and single-case methodologies. Moreover, training programs can
encourage positive student attitudes toward
research through direct education and faculty-student collaboration on studies of
groups. Stockton and Hulse (1983) noted
that the degree to which faculty members
express favorable attitudes toward the benefits 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-

IIO

opment of group research by ASGW members 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 meaningful and useful contributions to an understanding of what works with groups and
why, group workers, their training programs, and their professional associations
must collaborate to determine the most productive means of resolving the ambiguities
of group counseling research.

REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bednar, R.L. (1980). The psychological development of group theory fixation. Contemporary 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 empirical 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. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 8 12-838).
New York: Wiley.
Campbell, J.P., & Dunnette, M.D. (1968). Effectiveness of T-group experience in managerial 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.), Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice (American Group Psychotherapy Association Monograph Series) (pp.
1-26). New York: International Universities
Press.
Dies, R.R. (1983b). Clinical implications of research on leadership to short-term group psyJournal Jor Specialists in Group Work

Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:02 28 October 2014

chotherapy. In R.R. Dies & R. MacKenzie

(Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating 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). Conceptualizing group research: A preliminary analysis. Small Group Behavior, 9, 173-191.
Kaul, T.J., & Bednar, R.L. (1986). Experimental
group research: Results, questions and suggestions. 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). Perspectives on group research programs. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 10, 186-191.
Parloff, M.B., & Dies, R.R. (1977). Group psychotherapy outcome research 1966-1975. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy.
27, 281-320.

September 1987

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
Psychology, 15, 29-47.
Stock, D. (1964). A survey of research on Tgroups. In L.P. Bradford, J.E. Gibb, & U.D.
Benne (Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory
method: Innovation in reeducation (pp. 395441). New York: Wiley.
Stockton, R., & Hulse, D. (1983). Use of research teams to enhance competence in counseling research. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 22, 303-3 10.
Stockton, R., & Morran, D.K. (1982). Review
and perspective of critical dimensions in therapeutic small group research. In G.M. Gazda
(Ed.), Basic approaches to group psychotherapy and group counseling (3rd ed.) (pp. 3783). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Woods, M. (1980). Relevance, activity, and intermember familiarity as parameters of group
structure: Effects on early group development.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Kentucky, Lexington.