This article was downloaded by: [University of Szeged]On: 27 April 2014, At: 05:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

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

Classification of GroupsDonald E. Ward aa Pittsburg State UniversityPublished online: 13 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Donald E. Ward (2006) Classification of Groups, The Journal forSpecialists in Group Work, 31:2, 93-97

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01933920500493548

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in 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 the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

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 athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Szeg

ed] a

t 05:2

2 27 A

pril 2

014

EDITORIAL

Classification of Groups

Donald E. WardPittsburg State University

Keywords: group types; classification of groups; ASGW

I often ask authors to include a statementin their manuscripts that clarifies the type ofgroup they are describing for readers. Itseems to me that, for most of us mere mor-tals, it is very difficult to deliver all of the ele-ments of all types of groups in a single groupexperience. Meeting very disparate clientneeds from the need for simple informationthrough major personality reconstructionseems to be an unwieldy and unrealistic goalunlikely to be accomplished in a single groupand more likely to lead to mediocre outcomesor even failure. This is why a thoughtful

member selection process is so critical for obtaining positive group out-comes. Whenever possible, we need to include those members who willmost benefit from and provide benefit to or at least not have a majornegative effect on the specific group. In practice, we may sometimescircumvent these issues by reducing the emphasis on group processand emphasizing structured or primarily leader-directed groups, inwhich the primary sources of change are perceived as individual lea-der-member interactions and individual member work on his or herown issues and goals. This often reduces the magnitude of the powerfulimpact of the interpersonal process that can develop between membersand members and between members and the group itself, thus limitingthe extent to which the full potential of the group work facilitative-therapeutic interpersonal mechanism can operate and maximize out-come. Clearly, there is value in group formats that do not emphasizeinterpersonal process. Limitations may arise, however, when focusingupon interpersonal process would measurably increase outcome, butthe opportunity is avoided by the use of more structured, leader-direc-ted methods, rather than carefully designed formats and selection of

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK, Vol. 31 No. 2, June 2006, 9397

DOI: 10.1080/01933920500493548

# 2006 ASGW

93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Szeg

ed] a

t 05:2

2 27 A

pril 2

014

members whose needs are consistent with an interpersonal processemphasis. Serious problems limiting the amount of positive outcomemay also result from attempts to apply complex process models in con-texts in which member needs and readiness are too disparate for colla-borative work at necessary levels of disclosure, self-reflection,interpersonal interaction, and feedback. The use of a common classi-fication system of group types is therefore important to efforts thatdesign and deliver high-quality groups designed to provide maximumgains formembers with specific target characteristics and needs. It doesseem logical, however, that any set of discrete group types is bound to beonly partially reflective of the very real richness and complexity ofmean-ingful group experiences.

Interest in categorizing groups into types has been the subject ofscholarly work for at least 25 years. Betz proposed a typology in 1973.Wilbur, Roberts-Wilbur, and Betz expanded upon this model in 1981,proposing a three-cluster model and describing four functions and nineleader behavior and member expectation and role variables for the clus-ters. In their revision of the Association for Specialists in Group Work:Professional Standards for the Training of Group Workers, the ASGWProfessional Training Standards Committee included a four-categorymodel of group types which was adopted by ASGW in 1991 and pub-lished in the Journal for Specialists in Group Work (1992) as the ASGWmodel of group types, based upon scholarly discussions and a survey oftraining practices and models applied by counselor education programsin the United States. Conyne et al. describe the context of these revisedstandards with the proposed four-category model (1992), expressing thebelief that they will evince a direction that will better position groupwork training and practice for the diverse and comprehensive demandsthat will face counselor and group work specialists in the 21st century(p. 11). In a JSGW special section, Waldo and Bauman (1998) proposed amodel entitled the GAP Matrix Model, describing a nine-cell matrix ofgoals and process for classification. Six sets of authors wrote reactionsto their article (Conyne & Wilson, 1998; Gerrity, 1998; Keel, 1998;McNair-Semands, 1998; Taub, 1998; and Ward, 1998), and Baumanand Waldo wrote a rejoinder (1998).

The ASGWmodel was revised slightly, retaining the four types, andadopted by ASGW and published in The Journal for Specialists inGroup Work in 2000. This current ASGW typology of groups (2000)ranges fromWork-Task Groups that focus on group task goals externalto the members functioning; Psychoeducation Groups that focus uponprevention for enhancement of at-risk or developmental progress;Group Counseling that emphasizes interactive group process for mem-bers who may be experiencing transitory maladjustment, who are atrisk for the development of personal or interpersonal problems, or

94 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/ June 2006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Szeg

ed] a

t 05:2

2 27 A

pril 2

014

who seek enhancement of personal qualities and abilities; and Psycho-therapy Groups that focus upon addressing personal and interpersonalproblems of living, remediating perceptual and cognitive distortions orrepetitive patterns of dysfunctional behavior, and promoting personaland interpersonal growth and development among people who maybe experiencing severe and=or chronic maladjustment. Although ithas been very helpful, I believe, to have a typology sanctioned byASGW to standardize and contextualize to some extent our descrip-tions of the many groups with which we work, it also seems that over-lapping and blending of group types in the same group experience oftenbest represents the reality of the evolving practice of group work.

Some groups, therefore, most likely can and should contain ele-ments of more than one type of group. From considering this issue logi-cally and observing descriptions and practice of groups, I have come tofour tentative conclusions. First, it is very challenging and many timesimpossible for most group workers to provide high-quality service ofthree or four types in the same group. Second, blending the goalsand focus of two types of group work adjacent to one another in theASGW model, such as psychoeducation and counseling, is preferableto attempts to blend two nonadjacent types of groups in the samegroup experience, such as psychoeducation and psychotherapy. Third,if blending occurs across more than one type in the same group, it islikely best when the primary designated purpose of the group is onthe most complex and personally intense type of group, such aspsychotherapy, both practically and ethically. If a group is conceptua-lized, advertised, composed, and conducted as primarily a psycho-therapy group to deal with those needing intense interpersonal workto remediate major psychological dysfunctional patterns, then atten-tion to interpersonal problem-solving at the group counseling leveland preventative, psychoeducational knowledge and skill acquisitionat the psychoeducation level seem to be appropriate and potentiallymanageable as part of the overall therapeutic group experience. How-ever, if a group experience is conceptualized, advertised, selected, andconducted primarily as a psychoeducation group, it is unlikely that theappropriate group norms necessary to support the intensity of thesocial-emotional and task elements necessary for effective grouppsychotherapy will develop in the same group experience. Further,it is nearly, if not wholly, unethical to advertise and recruit membersfor a group experience while working primarily at other levels of inten-sity. Of course, ASGW continues to be a leader in its concern for andattention to this issue, since most other professional group organiza-tions and models do not stress the importance of distinguishing amonggroup types and purposes and delivering targeted services designed toserve client needs more directly. Thus, it is obviously much easier

Ward /CLASSIFICATION 95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Szeg

ed] a

t 05:2

2 27 A

pril 2

014

simply to call the focus of a specific experience a therapy group or,more generically, a group, than to attempt to design and deliver amore meaningful group experience that targets specific client needs.

Another distinct advantage of using a typology is to aid in efforts toapply and meet the goal of Pauls 1966 recommendation that we mustwork to identify what types of interventions are most effective withwhat kinds of clients in what kinds of contexts. Current efforts to ident-ify and differentially apply evidence-based interventions to enhanceoutcomes in mental health treatment are consistent with this dictum.Unfortunately, although group work scholars such as Burlingame,Fuhriman, and Mosier (2003) have concluded that evidence from ameta-analysis of 111 studies published over the last 20 years supportsthe overall effectiveness of group psychotherapy, they also concludedthat there is less published research that supports differential effec-tiveness dependent upon complex interactive variables present ingroup treatment. It is with this very complex goal of identifying evi-dence of differential effectiveness of more specific group work variablesthat group types can be most valuable, providing a model throughwhich practitioners, theorists, and researchers can differentially applygroup work interventions and conceptualize and investigate the effectsof different interventions with different types of groups.

Consistent with the complexity of group work in the real world, thearticles in this issue of JSGW represent applications of a variety of typesof group work aimed at a number of target audiences. Kelly provides apersonal view of her experience as a participant in a wilderness-basedadventure program for abuse survivors. Rubel and Okech present theirthree-dimensionalmodel for supervising groupwork, their adaptation ofthe discrimination supervision model. Working with remarried couplesin a group setting aimed at stepfamily enrichment is the topic ofMichaels article. Gillen and Balkin describe a somewhat novel appli-cation of adventure counseling in hospital and clinical settings. Finally,Okech and Kline present the results of their qualitative study of compe-tency concerns in co-leader relationships, issues rarely addressed byresearchers. As always, these articles offer a diverse and interestingarray of current practice with intriguing implications for the future.

REFERENCES

Association for Specialists in Group Work (1992). Association for specialists in groupwork: professional standards for the training of group workers. The Journal forSpecialists in Group Work, 17, 1219.

Association for Specialists in Group Work (2000). Association for Specialists in GroupWork: Professional Standards for the Training of Group Workers. The Journal forSpecialists in Group Work, 25, 327342.

96 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/ June 2006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Szeg

ed] a

t 05:2

2 27 A

pril 2

014

Bauman, S. & Waldo, M. (1998). Regrouping the categorization of group work: A goalsand process (GAP) matrix for groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,23, 215224.

Betz, R. L. (1973). A proposed typology of group processes. Michigan Personnel andGuidance Journal, 4(2), 1824.

Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Mosier, J. (2003). The differential effectiveness ofgroup psychotherapy: A meta-analytic perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory,Research, and Practice, 7, 312.

Conyne, R. K., Dye, H. Allan, Kline, W. B., Morran, D. K., Ward, D. E., & Wilson, F. R.(1992). Context for revising the association for specialists in group work trainingstandards. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 17, 1011.

Conyne, R. K. & Wilson, F. R. (1998). Regrouping the categorization of group work: Agoals and process (GAP) matrix for groups. The Journal for Specialists in GroupWork, 23, 177184.

Gerrity, D. A. (1998). Regrouping the categorization of group work: A goals and process(GAP) matrix for groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 202207.

Keel, L. P. (1998). Regrouping the categorization of group work: A goals and process(GAP) matrix for groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 192195.

MacNair-Semands, R. R. (1998). Regrouping the categorization of group work: A goalsand process (GAP) matrix for groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,23, 208214.

Paul, G. L. (1966). Insight versus desensitization in psychotherapy: An experiment inanxiety reduction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Taub, D. J. (1998). Regrouping the categorization of group work: A goals and process(GAP) matrix for groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 196201.

Waldo, M. & Bauman, S. (1998). Regrouping the categorization of group work: A goalsand process (GAP) matrix for groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,23, 164176.

Ward, D. E. (1998). Regrouping the categorization of group work: A goals and process(GAP) matrix for groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 185191.

Ward, D. E. & Litchy, M. (2004). The effective use of processing in groups. In J. L.DeLucia-Waack, D. A. Gerrity, C. R. Kalodner, & M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook ofgroup counseling and psychotherapy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilbur, M. P., Roberts-Wilbur, J., & Betz, R. L. (1981). Leader and member behaviorsin three group modalities: A typology. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,6, 224234.

Ward /CLASSIFICATION 97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Szeg

ed] a

t 05:2

2 27 A

pril 2

014