Group Observation Analysis

Shyterria Sims

College of Social Work, University of South Carolina

SOWK 411: Social Work with Groups

Bree Alexander

October 29, 2023

 2

Group Observation Analysis

Group Structure

The observed group was an online, open group that was open to new members at all

times. To join the meetings, members had to sign up on the Amputee Coalition website using a

link directed to this specific group. Following sign up, they receive an email that entails their

meeting date. One hour before the meeting begins, a Zoom link is sent to each member to join.

The leader called for an open group due to many people not knowing of this specific group. She

says support should not be halted for anyone as life can change quickly. For this group, only

caregivers of people experiencing limb loss or amputations were able to participate. The group

was created to be a safe space for caregivers and prevent them from facing criticism or backlash

for telling their stories. As an online group, they did have a max of twenty people per session to

allow everyone the chance to participate and not exceed the 90-minute time slot.

Leadership and Group Dynamics

The communication and interaction patterns of the support group were leader-centered.

At the start of the meeting, the facilitator and leader introduced themselves and their roles, then

began the session. After a brief introduction, the group leader called on each member to

introduce themselves, who they care for, and what they hope this meeting will help with.

Throughout the session, the leader would ask a question and then ask the members their thoughts

on them. Upon sharing, the leader would provide encouraging feedback and nonverbal cues to

show understanding and listening to them.

Most members have been caregivers for as long as two years; others for at least a month.

For some members, the group’s cohesiveness was enough to be present during my observation

and before it. Some members needed to socialize because their relationships outside the group
 3

were unsatisfactory or nonexistent (Toseland & Rivas, 2017). The recurring members may have

felt a sense of unity and community due to being caregivers most of the day. One member shared

they have not had time to meet new people since their new role. Another member shared they

enjoyed being in the group because others could relate to their feelings and emotions, and they

would not feel bad sharing them.

Though there were two types of leaders in this group, only one was dominant during the

meeting. Toseland and Rivas (2017) identify leaders of support groups to help members share

their experiences and empathically respond to each other and help members overcome feelings

of alienation, stigmatization, and isolation by validating, affirming, and normalizing their

experiences. The leader of this group did just that. When members explained what they were

expecting out of the meeting, she would assure them in an encouraging way that they were in the

right place to meet their goals. She spoke with kindness and empathy and offered assistance

outside of the group to all members if they needed it.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical frameworks used in the meeting were constructivist and narrative

theories. Constructivist and narrative theories focus on how group members create and maintain

their realities through life stories and subjective experiences (Toseland & Rivas, 2017). The

group leader demonstrated use of this framework by allowing the members to tell their stories,

identify their goals, and validate each member’s experiences. A solution focused approach was

also applied. This approach focuses on the members’ abilities to use their current skills to

approach the future differently. The leader asked members their perspectives of what change(s)

they sought and how they could get there. Initially, the members did not believe they had any

skills that could help them think or feel differently. This approach was effective because it
 4

allowed group members to work through their current situations and work towards positive

thinking and actions. It also gave the members time to reflect on their lives before their new roles

and try to incorporate the past with the present. The leader assisted with the thought process by

assuring the members that a skill did not necessarily have to be something they were good at, but

something that made them happy.

Expectations

As written in my proposal paper, I expected to be capable of identifying how the leader

interacts with the group members, the group’s dynamics, and group composition. After attending

the meeting, all expectations were met.

Throughout the session, I managed to identify the developmental stage of the group, its

effectiveness, and how the members interacted with each other. I concluded that the group is an

open group as the leader knew a few of the members and not the others. The leader also

validated my conclusion by stating to the group members they will possibly meet new people

every month as the meetings continue. Due to the group being in the storming stage, an open

group, and online, the members did not interact with each other as much as I would have

thought. The interactions consisted of nonverbal cues such as head nods and questions directed

to the leader.

The group's composition was nothing how I expected it to be either. Before the meeting, I

thought the members’ demographics would be similar. I believed the group would consist of

only Caucasian women in middle adulthood. This perception comes from preconceived notions

of who I have mentally determined as a caregiver. Though people were fitting the description,

the demographics were diverse. There were men, African-Americans, Hispanics, people in early

adulthood, and even someone in late adulthood.

 5

References

Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2017). An Introduction to Group Work Practice (8th ed.).

Pearson Education Limited.