Regrouping the categorization of group work a goals and process (GAP) matrix for groups

Abstract

The four group work categories &veloped by thehsociation for Specialists in GroupWork have been usefil in organizing intenrentions and establishing training standards. The categories are problematic, howeuel; in that the goal and process dimensions of group work are combined within each category. Rigid fusion of goal and process makes it difficult to categorize the many groups that pursue goals from one category through aprocess associated with another: A new model fbr the classification of group work is proposed, which separates goals and process dimensions, forming a matrix that allows for more accurate categorization of group types.

Promoting student development through psychoeducational groups: A perspective on the goals and process matrix

“…Using Waldo and Bauman's (1998) matrix to examine the group work performed by student development educators, it seems clear that these groups' goals would be classified as "developmental." They are grounded in a body of theory and research about how students grow and change in complexity during the college years along a variety of dimensions (see, e.g., Evans, 1996;McEwen, 19961, and they address normal functioning and transitions (Winston et al, 1988).…”

“…For the process dimension, Waldo and Bauman (1998) retain the ASGW labels of guidance (or psychoeducational), counseling, and therapy, The ASGW standards describe the process of psychoeducational groups as being one of teaching. This description fits well the group work of student development educators.…”

“…This objective, and the other objectives that comprise the goal, suggests the kinds of activities and the processes that should be undertaken in the group. Waldo and Bauman (1998) articulate a number of concerns that they believe are created by the current classification system and that they further believe are solved by their proposed matrix. This, they assert, is the reason to adopt this new classification system.…”

“…As for training issues-the fourth area of concern identified by Waldo and Bauman (1998)-it is my perspective that adopting this matrix has the potential to complicate training. Beginning trainees may be best served by being taught the simplest classification system-along with the caveat that the classification systems are, by their very nature, reductionistic, whereas the real world is complex.…”

“…The implication of the GAP matrix, however, is that a single process is being employed in the group. Waldo and Bauman (1998) have raised some interesting issues through the development of the GAP matrix. Most important, they have focused our attention on the discrepancy between the reductionistic nature of any classification system and the complexity of the real world.…”