Strength and Diversity in Social Work with

Groups Think Group 1st Edition Carol S. Cohen

(Editor) pdf download
https://ebookgate.com/product/strength-and-diversity-in-social-work-with-groups-think-group-1st-
edition-carol-s-cohen-editor/

★★★★★ 4.9/5.0 (43 reviews) ✓ 135 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Great resource, downloaded instantly. Thank you!" - Lisa K.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Strength and Diversity in Social Work with Groups Think
Group 1st Edition Carol S. Cohen (Editor) pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK EBOOK GATE

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Group Theory Birdtracks Lie s and Exceptional Groups

Predrag Cvitanovic

https://ebookgate.com/product/group-theory-birdtracks-lie-s-and-
exceptional-groups-predrag-cvitanovic/

ebookgate.com

Social Work with Older People 2nd Edition Transforming

Social Work Practice Karin Crawford

https://ebookgate.com/product/social-work-with-older-people-2nd-
edition-transforming-social-work-practice-karin-crawford/

ebookgate.com

Developments in Social Work Offenders Research Highlights

in Social Work 1st Edition Gill Mcivor

https://ebookgate.com/product/developments-in-social-work-offenders-
research-highlights-in-social-work-1st-edition-gill-mcivor/

ebookgate.com

Social Psychology 1st Edition Carol Brown

https://ebookgate.com/product/social-psychology-1st-edition-carol-
brown/

ebookgate.com
Diversity at work 1st Edition Arthur P. Brief

https://ebookgate.com/product/diversity-at-work-1st-edition-arthur-p-
brief/

ebookgate.com

Social Psychology of Gender Advances in Group Processes

Advances in Group Processes 1st Edition Shelley Correll

https://ebookgate.com/product/social-psychology-of-gender-advances-in-
group-processes-advances-in-group-processes-1st-edition-shelley-
correll/
ebookgate.com

Galois groups and fundamental groups 1st Edition Tamás

Szamuely

https://ebookgate.com/product/galois-groups-and-fundamental-
groups-1st-edition-tamas-szamuely/

ebookgate.com

Social work theory and practice with the terminally ill

Second Edition Parry

https://ebookgate.com/product/social-work-theory-and-practice-with-
the-terminally-ill-second-edition-parry/

ebookgate.com

Emotion in Social Relations Cultural Group and

Interpersonal Perspectives Brian Parkinson

https://ebookgate.com/product/emotion-in-social-relations-cultural-
group-and-interpersonal-perspectives-brian-parkinson/

ebookgate.com
1111
2 Strength and Diversity in
3
4 Social Work with Groups
5
6 Think Group
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 “A coherent and comprehensive collection of articles that inform us about
4 practice with a diversity of groups and ignite excitement about their breadth
5 and potential. As you journey from one article to another, it is impossible to
6 lay the book down. I thank the editors for their labor of love in putting together
7 this uniquely informative collection and strongly recommend it to you.”
8 Alex Gitterman, Zachs Professor of Social Work,
9 University of Connecticut, USA
20111 How can groups effectively meet the needs of humans in areas as diverse as
1 aid, responsibility, action, healing, learning, and acceptance? This edited
2 volume aims to address these issues and provide ways to extend the current
3 reach and quality of social work with groups.
4 Based on a selection of papers from the 24th Annual International
5 Symposium of the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with
6 Groups (AASWG) the chosen chapters embody the strength and diversity of
7 the Symposium, encouraging readers to “Think Group.” Chapters address the
8 future challenges faced in social work with groups, including issues in teaching
9 group work, holistic thinking about groups, team-building, staff development
30111 programs and university–agency collaborations to strengthen group work
1 practice. There are chapters focusing on how mutual aid groups support
2 trauma recovery, including one with firemen addressing the aftermath of the
3 9/11 disaster, as well as chapters that examine group work’s place in com-
4 munity development, challenging social isolation, mask making as a medium
35 for growth, and special issues in addressing concerns of children and youth.
6 This book will be of interest to researchers, professionals, and students in
7 social work and human service fields.
8
9 Carol S. Cohen is Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Adelphi
40111 University, USA.
1
Michael H. Phillips is Professor Emeritus in the Graduate School of Social
2
Service at Fordham University, USA.
3
4 Meredith Hanson is Professor in the Graduate School of Social Service at
45111 Fordham University, USA.
1111
2
3
Strength and Diversity in
4
5
Social Work with Groups
6
7
Think Group
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 Edited by
4
5 Carol S. Cohen,
6
7
Michael H. Phillips and
8 Meredith Hanson
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
4
45111
First published 2009
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

© 2009 Taylor & Francis

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or

reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Strength and diversity in social work with groups: think group/
Carol S. Cohen, Michael H. Phillips, Meredith Hanson, editors.
p. cm.
Collection of proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium of
the AASWG.
1. Social group work—Study and teaching—United States—
Congresses. I. Cohen, Carol S., 1950– II. Phillips, Michael H.
III. Hanson, Meredith.
HV45. T53 2008
361.4—dc22 2007051966

ISBN 0-203-88371-3 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 10: 0–7890–3790–4 (hbk)

ISBN 10: 0–7890–3791–2 (pbk)
ISBN 10: 0–203–88371–3 (ebk)

ISBN 13: 978–0–7890–3790–9 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978–0–7890–3791–6 (pbk)
ISBN 13: 978–0–203–88371–6 (ebk)
1111
2 Contents
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 List of Figures vii
4 About the Editors ix
5 Contributors xi
6
7 Introduction 1
8 CAROL S. COHEN, MICHAEL H. PHILLIPS, AND
9 MEREDITH HANSON
20111
1
1 Caught in the Doorway Between Education and Practice:
2
Group Work’s Battle for Survival 11
3
ROBERT SALMON AND ROSELLE KURLAND
4
5
2 Thinking Group in Collaboration and Community Building:
6
An Interprofessional Model 21
7
NINA L. ARONOFF AND DARLYNE BAILEY
8
9
3 The Genealogy of Group Work: The Missing Factor in
30111
Teaching Skill Today 31
1
GEORGE S. GETZEL
2
3
4 A Cross System Initiative Supporting Child Welfare
4
Workforce Professionalization and Stabilization: A Task
35
Group in Action 41
6
VIRGINIA STRAND, ALMA CARTEN, DIANE CONNOLLY,
7
SHELDON R. GELMAN, AND PETER B. VAUGHAN
8
9
5 Mutual Empathy: A Means of Improving the Quality of
40111
Emergency Health Care Services Rendered to Marginalized,
1
Addicted Individuals 55
2
ARIELLE DYLAN
3
4
45111
vi Contents
6 Assessing Skills in Groupwork: A Program of Continuing
Professional Development 69
MARK DOEL

7 The Use of Group Work with New York City Firefighters

Post-9/11 81
JOHN MARCHINI

8 Support Groups for Welfare Moms 93

EVELYN F. SLAGHT

9 Mask Making and Social Groupwork 103

NUALA LORDAN, DEIRDRE QUIRKE, AND MARY WILSON

10 Why We Get No Respect: Existential Dilemmas for

Group Workers Who Work with Kids’ Groups 121
ANDREW MALEKOFF

11 Traumatic Grief Groups for Children, Adolescents and

their Caregivers: A Short-Term Treatment Model 133
HELEN B. MULLIN AND DEBORAH S. LANGOSCH

12 Group Work with Adolescent Sexual Offenders in

Community-based Treatment 147
CHRISTY DRISCOLL AND KEITH T. FADELICI

Index 159
1111
2 Figures
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 6.1 Some Examples from the 53 Groups in the Groupwork Project 72
4 6.2 An Example of the DAR Process 75
5 6.3 The LPE (Learning-Practice Escalator) 77
6 6.4 The Groupwork Project in Figures 77
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
4
45111
1111
2 About the Editors
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 Carol S. Cohen, DSW, is an Associate Professor at the Adelphi University
4 School of Social Work. Her work in the areas of group work, field and
5 classroom teaching, supervision, agency-based practice, and community
6 development has been published and disseminated nationally and
7 internationally. She is a current Board Member of the AASWG. Her
8 proposal, “Global Group Work,” building a network of social group work
9 educators throughout the world, was funded by the International
20111 Association of Schools of Social Work. Before joining the academic ranks,
1 she held leadership positions with Catholic Charities of Brooklyn and
2 Queens, focusing on community development, youth and family services,
3 evaluation, and training.
4
Michael H. Phillips, DSW, is Professor Emeritus at the Fordham University
5
Graduate School of Social Service and remains intensely connected to
6
practice, agencies, and organizations. He is a former Treasurer of the
7
AASWG and has conducted influential research projects and authored
8
publications in program evaluation, group work practice, and organ-
9
izational development. Articles, chapters, and reports related to social
30111
work with groups have included work on teaching group work and groups
1
in teaching, incorporating resiliency themes in practice, confidentiality and
2
norms for outside contacts, and focus group research methods.
3
4 Meredith Hanson, DSW, is a Professor and Director of the Ph.D. Program in
35 Social Work at the Fordham University Graduate School of Social Service.
6 His teaching, practice, and scholarly interests include group work practice
7 in addictions, evidence-based practice, homelessness, and cross-national
8 social work practice and education. He has published several articles and
9 book chapters in these areas, and has presented many papers at local,
40111 national and international conferences.
1
2
3
4
45111
1111
2 Contributors
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 Nina L. Aronoff, Ph.D., LICSW, Assistant Professor of Social Work and
4 MSW Program Director, Wheelock College, Boston, Massachusetts.
5
Darlyne Bailey, Ph.D., MSW, Dean, College of Education and Human
6
Development, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis Minnesota.
7
8 Alma Carten, DSW, MSW, Assistant Professor, New York University School
9 of Social Work, New York.
20111
Diane Connolly, Ph.D., MSW, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Quality
1
Improvement of the NYC Administration for Children’s Services, New
2
York.
3
4 Mark Doel, Ph.D., MA, CQSW, Professor of Social Work, Centre for Health
5 and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England.
6
Christy Driscoll, LCSW-R, 2007 Graduate of New York University College
7
of Nursing, New York.
8
9 Arielle Dylan, MSW, MA, Honours BA, Doctoral Candidate, University of
30111 Toronto, Canada.
1
Keith T. Fadelici, LCSW, Assistant Director, Victims Assistance Services,
2
Westchester, New York; Adjunct instructor, Adelphi University School of
3
Social Work; Private Practitioner, Poughkeepsie, New York.
4
35 Sheldon R. Gelman, Ph.D., Professor and Dean, Wurzweiler School of Social
6 Work of Yeshiva University, New York.
7
George S. Getzel, DSW, Professor Emeritus, Hunter College School of Social
8
Work.
9
40111 Roselle Kurland, Ph.D. (Deceased), Professor, Hunter College School of Social
1 Work, New York.
2
Deborah S. Langosch, Ph.D., LCSW, Clinical Coordinator, Loss and
3
Bereavement Program, Center for Trauma Program Innovation, Jewish
4
45111
xii Contributors
Board of Family and Children’s Services; Child and Adult Psychotherapist,
Project Director, Kinship Care Program, New York.
Nuala Lordan, B.Soc.Sc., M.Soc.Sc. (retired) Former Course Director of the
BSW, University College Cork; Member of the University’s Board of
Governors, Cork, Ireland.
Andrew Malekoff, MSW, Executive Director/CEO for North Shore Child
and Family Guidance Center, Roslyn Heights, New York; Journal Editor,
Social Work with Groups.
John Marchini, MSW, LCSW, Employee Assistance Program Specialist, Fire
Department of New York Counseling Service Unit, New York.
Helen B. Mullin, LCSW, BCD, Psychotherapist and Substance Abuse
Specialist, Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Manhattan
Counseling Center; Formerly with the Jewish Board of Family and
Children’s Services; Adjunct Professor, New York University, New York.
Deirdre Quirke, B.Sc. (Social Work), C.Q.S.W. Director, Fieldwork
Instruction Unit at Brothers of Charity, Cork, Ireland.
Robert Salmon, DSW, Professor, Hunter College School of Social Work, New
York.
Evelyn F. Slaght, Ph.D., MSW, Associate Professor, School of Social Work,
Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois.
Virginia Strand, DSW, Professor, Fordham University Graduate School of
Social Service, New York.
Peter B. Vaughan, Ph.D., MSW, MA, Dean, Fordham University Graduate
School of Social Service, New York.
Mary Wilson, B.Soc.Sc., Dip.Social Work, C.Q.S.W., Ph.D., BSW Course
Director, University College Cork, Ireland.
1111
2 Introduction
3
4
5
Carol S. Cohen, Michael H. Phillips,
6 and Meredith Hanson
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111 XXIV AASWG Symposium
4
New York City was the center of social work practice with groups in the fall
5
of 2002, when approximately 500 people joined together to look at how
6
“Thinking Group” could serve as a way of addressing the strength and
7
diversity in social work with groups: this was the 24th Annual International
8
Symposium of the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with
9
Groups (AASWG), held at the Brooklyn Marriott Hotel. The Symposium was
20111
an experience of thinking, living, and learning in groups. The three-day
1
Symposium included over 170 exciting presentations, including mobilizing
2
addresses, dynamic workshops, intriguing papers, interactive panels, exciting
3
displays and many opportunities for networking and discussion, conducted
4
by over 250 presenters and chairpersons.
5
When we began to develop the conference theme we thought about the
6
diversity of settings in which groups could be used and, further, the many
7
strengths that group skills bring to solving a range of problems. We wondered
8
what idea could unify all these thoughts. Suddenly the unifying theme for the
9
Symposium theme appeared right before our eyes—a large billboard, above
30111
Tenth Avenue in Manhattan, New York City, proclaimed Think Different
1
with a giant portrait of Albert Einstein and a modestly sized (by billboard
2
standards) Apple Computer logo in the corner. Apple’s advertising campaign
3
was designed to celebrate creativity and those who “push the human race
4
forward” (Ono, 1997). Perhaps the same could be said for the potential of
35
groups to geometrically expand the benefits and power of members to move
6
ahead. Not by coincidence, Apple’s campaign was launched at a time when
7
the computer company was experiencing plunging market share and diminish-
8
ing stock value, accompanied by sagging employee morale (Elliot, 1998). In
9
a compelling parallel, we face the prospect of decreased utilization of groups
40111
in human service settings and declining numbers of social workers with group
1
work expertise as we move forward in social work practice.
2
We saw these spiraling trends and transformed Think Different to Think
3
Group. Sadly, using a group frame of reference is all too often a different
4
way of thinking in social work, but one that is nonetheless exciting and
45111
2 Carol S. Cohen et al.
empowering. As an “enterprise of mutual aid” (Schwartz, 1971) social work
with groups is indeed different from work with individuals, as it involves
member to member exchange and places the source of growth in the
membership, in the geometric effects of giving and accepting help among
members (Cohen, 1993).
Thus, Think Group became our theme and working mantra as we engaged
in the planning process. Returning to our original thinking we decided that
we needed to reintegrate the strength of groups. Hence we needed to include
the term strength to signify the intense value and power of the group for its
members and the potential of group methods in social work. Diversity was
also selected to convey the wide range of members, settings, approaches, and
communities in which thinking group makes a profound difference and
through which groups draw much of their power (Johnson & Johnson, 2000).
The chapters included in this book embody both the strength and diversity
of the Symposium, and represent the intense spirit and high level of scholar-
ship of the presentations.
Almost immediately, we connected with the construct of thinking group,
coined by Ruth Middleman and Gail Goldberg Wood as one concept that
lies at the heart of our work with groups (1990). It involves using a group lens
as the frame for seeing what is going on around us and involves viewing the
group as a vehicle through which individual change occurs (Sundel, Glasser,
Sarri, & Vinter, 1985). While thinking group may be divergent, our clients
and communities hunger for the connections promised by collective experi-
ence. As Lewis Lowy said 50 years ago, “individuals want to gain satisfactions
from group participation; they want to learn and to feel that they are part of
a larger whole to which they can make a personal contribution” (1955, p. 62).
Making such contributions and receiving benefits in exchange is the essence
of mutual aid, and a dynamic we sought to encourage in the Symposium
participation experience.
The theme of Think Group, provided a context for us to examine how
groups effectively meet compelling human needs, as sources of aid,
responsibility, action, healing, learning, and acceptance. As Hirayama and
Hirayama suggest, a group can be a “reservoir of power resources where
individual participants can get help and receive support” (1986, p. 124). The
AASWG International Symposium is such a reservoir, from which
participants can dip a cup or dive right in for an immersion in group work
thinking. In 1979, the first Symposium was mounted “to reestablish social
group work and its value system as a major force in the development of the
social work profession” (Abels & Abels, 1981). While some progress has
been achieved, we are still moving towards the realization of this goal.
The success of the 24th Symposium had seemed impossible a year before,
when the hotel in which the symposium was to be held was destroyed in the
World Trade Center attack. Reflecting on those days, it is clear that the power
of groups made it possible to move on. The AASWG Board and groups of
members encouraged us and gave rousing support as we worked with our
 Introduction 3
1111 remarkable planning committee to find another venue and keep going
2 forward. As organizers, we attempted to think group at every turn, and
3 harnessed the power of planning in group settings to bring together all the
4 elements of the symposium so that the whole became greater than the sum of
5 its parts. Groups and organizations throughout the world invested in the
6 Symposium, making it a memorable and affecting experience.
7 Participants from throughout the world came with a wide variety of
8 interests and experiences. As noted in their evaluations, some found the
9 symposium “reinvigorating” and found that it “got the creative juices
1011 flowing.” For others, it was “awesome to meet, see and hear social work
1 pioneers,” and “connect with others who share the passion for work with
2 groups.” Many commented on the “warmth,” “generosity,” as well as “high
3111 quality” of presentations and discussions. It is particularly gratifying to hear
4 participants were able to find and generate many ideas to take back to their
5 work, and extend to impact of the symposium beyond the four days that we
6 were together.
7 We were enormously gratified that agencies, organizations, and educational
8 institutions generously signed on as co-sponsors. Among these agencies were
9 the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Children’s Aid Society,
20111 Catholic Charities of Brooklyn and Queens, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of
1 New York City, and the Henry Street Settlement. Joining with AASWG as co-
2 sponsors were the New York City and New York State Chapter of NASW and
3 the United Way of New York City. Our local AASWG Chapters (Red Apple
4 and Long Island) were of enormous assistance. The Council on Social Work
5 Education sent a reporter to cover the Symposium for their newsletter, and
6 an article highlighting the participation of field instructors appeared in the
7 issue following the Symposium (Fanney, 2003).
8 Fordham University served as Host University, and provided a wide range
9 of in-kind and direct financial assistance, including printing, postage, student
30111 assistantships, and staff time. Adelphi University, Columbia University,
1 Hunter College, New York University, Stony Brook University, and Yeshiva
2 University served as co-sponsors. We worked within existing social work
3 education networks, including field instruction, and recruited liaisons from
4 each local school of social work. We drew over 100 student volunteers from
35 a wide range of social work programs in the Metropolitan New York Area.
6 The Symposium began with eight half-day Institutes: these were Group
7 Work with Workers Regarding Trauma, Effective Clinical Group Work
8 Strategies and Interventions, Spirituality in Social Work Practice with Groups,
9 Challenges in Middles of Groups, Teaching Personal and Social Development
40111 through Adventure-Based Practice, Helping Children through Mutual Aid
1 Activity Groups When the World No Longer Feels Safe, Field Instruction of
2 Social Work with Groups, Focus Groups and the Community-Based
3 Organization. There were also five “outstitutes,” conducted at multiple
4 community-based sites, at exemplary agency settings in New York City,
45111 namely the Community School Program of the Children’s Aid Society,
4 Carol S. Cohen et al.
Fountain House Clubhouse Program, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender
Community Center, Van Cortlandt Village Naturally Occurring Retirement
Community, and Village AIDS Network and Rivington House.
Our extraordinary plenary speakers and respondents set the tone, focused
on the importance of groups, and gave a call to action to participants. They
included William Bell, Commissioner of the NYC Administration for
Children’s Services, and Barbara Rittner of the University of Buffalo at the
Beulah G. Rothman Memorial Lecture at the opening banquet; Darlyne Bailey,
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean, Teachers College, Columbia
University, at the Sumner Gill Memorial Lecture on Friday; Pete Moses,
Executive Director of the Children’s Aid Society, group members of the “Life
Lines” group of the Center for Family Life, and group members of the
Children’s Aid Society 9/11 Support Group at the plenary luncheon on
Saturday; and Robert Salmon and Roselle Kurland, Hunter College School of
Social Work, at the plenary breakfast on Sunday.
As part of the symposium, the AASWG was proud to honor four people
who have made extraordinary contributions to social work with groups.
Pamela Cavallo, who passed away in the preceding year, was a social worker
whose love of people, ability to connect with physically challenged indivi-
duals, and excitement for innovation and growth were hallmarks of her life
and her career. She was always ahead of the field in her determination to
identify and implement new program models, particularly use of groups with
thousands of people with multiple sclerosis, their families, and the healthcare
professionals who support them. Daniel Kronenfeld served as the Executive
Director of the Henry Street Settlement from 1985 through 2002, following
his work as the founding director of the Settlement’s Urban Family Center for
13 years, the first transitional shelter for homeless families in New York City.
At the shelter, Danny demonstrated his commitment to the use of group
methods to help families establish solid support networks. In addition to
expanding Henry Street’s size, stature, and scope, Danny strengthened and
expanded the Settlement’s services to now reach over 100,000 people each
year on the Lower East Side and in other parts of the City.
George Getzel was honored upon his retirement, for his 28 years on the
faculty of the Hunter College School of Social Work. A gifted teacher and
prolific scholar, George made a profound contribution to his students’
professional development and to the profession’s literature, modeling a
commitment to advocacy and social justice and to creative group work
practice. His contribution in the area of work with people suffering with
HIV/AIDS was groundbreaking, demanding professional vision and courage.
Marcos Leiderman, Professor Emeritus of the Rutgers University School of
Social Work in New Brunswick, where he had a long and illustrious career
as a director of its group work program, migrated to the United States in
1964 after having played a leadership role in the opposition to Juan Peron.
Always committed to social justice, he played pivotal roles in the AASWG,
serving as two terms as the Secretary/Treasurer, Chair of the Seventh Annual
 Introduction 5
1111 Symposium in 1985, first Chair of the Chapter Development Committee, and
2 organizer and first Chair of the New Jersey Chapter. Danny, George, and
3 Marcos were present to receive their awards, along with friends and family
4 of Pam and all of the honorees.
5 The Symposium would not have been possible without the strong support
6 of the AASWG Board, particularly from Toby Berman-Rossi and Tim Kelly
7 and from other former Symposium Chairs and Coordinators including those
8 from Toronto, Akron, Denver, and NYC. As always, John and Carol Ramey
9 made an incredible contribution behind the scenes throughout the planning
1011 process, and on site in pulling together the membership table and coordinating
1 the syllabus exchange and sale of books published by CSWE and Haworth
2 Press, available to members with discounts. In addition, we received in-kind
3111 contributions from New York City & Company and Health First. We were
4 also supported by many advertisers—there were 23 pages of ads in the final
5 program.
6 Members of the Symposium Planning Committee served over a three-year
7 period—without them this event would have not been possible.
8
Michael Ash Linda Hutton
9
Martin Birnbaum Roselle Kurland
20111
Angel Campos Maxine Lynn
1
Lois Carey Andrew Malekoff
2
Marianne Chierchio Susan Mason
3
Susan Ciardiello Joseph Moore
4
Andrew Cicchetti Marilynn Myles
5
Letitia Coburn Danielle Nisivoccia
6
Barbara Dane Catherine Papell
7
George Getzel Rosa Perez-Koenig
8
Urania Glassman Roberta Rohdin
9
Mary Pender Greene Robert Salmon
30111
Andrew Hamid Christine Theuma
1 Ella Harris Sylvana Trabout
2 Loretta Hartley-Bangs Michael Wagner
3
4 All provided key areas of expertise and connection. With great delight we
35 note that when we met three weeks after the Symposium everyone was in
6 great spirits and honored our collective work as a vehicle that brought the
7 Symposium to life and brought us closer at the same time.
8 Over the next three days, there were wonderful social opportunities to
9 Think Group, including a send off by Marty Markowitz, Borough President
40111 of Brooklyn, as we began our group walk over the Brooklyn Bridge, ending
1 with a reception at the offices of C. Virginia Fields, Borough President of
2 Manhattan. The Chat ‘n’ Chew Network was introduced at the Symposium.
3 Through this Network veteran AASWG members facilitated three forums for
4 informal exchange among participants at the beginning, middle, and end of
45111 the Symposium.
6 Carol S. Cohen et al.
Contents of This Volume

Opening Chapters
Our hope is that this volume builds on the sense of connection engendered
by the symposium, and engages readers in our effort to extend the reach and
quality of social work with groups. Certainly the two keynote papers included
in the first section of this book open that possibility. Robert Salmon and
Roselle Kurland’s address, “Caught in the Doorway between Education and
Practice: Group Work’s Battle for Survival,” brought participants to the edge
of their seats as they considered the challenges to group work’s survival. Their
paper provides fuel for new resolve to Think Group and engage others in that
process. Darlyne Bailey’s presentation, focusing on the essential nature of
groups in community social work practice, provided essential tools to use a
group frame of reference as we approach professional practice and com-
munity development. Her paper with Nina Aranoff, “Thinking Group in
Collaboration and Community Building: An Interprofessional Model,” brings
readers an evolutionary perspective and contemporary perspectives in using
this way of thinking. These initial chapters are followed by sections focused
on social work education for practice with groups, group work as with adults,
and a final section focusing on group work with children.

Education for Social Work Practice with Groups

Traditionally, education for social work practice with groups has blended
theory, practice expertise, and research to address the concerns of clients and
other constituents, to understand how change occurs, and to help students and
professional social workers acquire and enhance the knowledge and skills
essential for group work practice. To enable group work to sustain itself as
a potent and vital practice modality, educators and practitioners must
embrace this tripartite approach to social group work practice and education
as they develop, apply, and evaluate innovative approaches to social work
education for practice with groups. Several presenters at the 24th Symposium
took the challenge of the Symposium’s theme to heart: They “thought group,”
and they created stimulating workshops and presentations that addressed
educational challenges faced in both field instruction and classroom settings.
In his chapter, George Getzel uses Schon’s (1987) ideas about “reflection-
in-action” to critically analyze the cross-generational transmission of group
work skills and to identify failures in group work education. He concludes
with some “modest proposals” to strengthen group work education, including
more parity between field instruction and classroom teaching and the more
effective use of “group work practice laboratories” to demonstrate group
work in vivo.
Middleman and Wood’s (1990) dictum to “think group” applies equally
well to broader community level educational efforts. By “thinking group”
we bring to life C. Wright Mills’s charge to see beyond a series of individual
 Introduction 7
1111 cases (1943) and to understand the confluence of “private troubles” and
2 “public issues.” Only by understanding the essential connection between the
3 challenges individuals face and societal responses can we appreciate the needs
4 of people and their impinging environments and develop solutions that will
5 benefit society and all of its citizens. Virginia Strand and her colleagues discuss
6 how identifying mutual concerns an innovative “town and gown” partnership
7 between human service organizations and schools of social work to support
8 the professionalization and stabilization of the child welfare workforce was
9 developed. The collaboration they describe is an excellent example of the
1011 value of group work principles for task groups addressing larger societal
1 concerns.
2 Arielle Dylan continues the discussion of “mutuality” in her stimulating
3111 chapter on “mutual empathy.” She speculates about reasons for empathic
4 failure by professionals when they encounter marginalized, low-income, and
5 addicted clients. She proposes an innovative staff development program that
6 addresses the failures and promotes mutual empathy. Mark Doel’s chapter
7 concludes this section. Drawing on findings from an action research project,
8 he explores a holistic approach to assessing group work practice and draws
9 implications for continuing professional development.
20111
1
Group Work with Adults
2
3 The post-9/11 period demonstrated the need of persons to reach out to each
4 other. Group work has always recognized the power of thinking group
5 to address the service needs of persons. Marchini’s chapter discusses how
6 group work was used to support individual firefighters assigned to work with
7 the families of firefighters who died at the twin towers. The intensity of
8 providing the families with both resources and emotional support takes a
9 personal tool. Thus these individuals were brought together in a group to
30111 provide them with the emotional support needed and a place where
1 knowledge of existing resource could be shared. The chapter highlights how
2 context, specifically the mutual aid tradition among firefighters and an
3 atmosphere of crisis, can lead to an accelerated movement through the phases
4 of group development.
35 The ability of groups to challenge social isolation is highlighted in the Slaght
6 chapter which discusses a voluntary community-based group designed to help
7 women in their transition from the stigmatized position of welfare recipient
8 to employment. The reality burdens of single motherhood and low self-esteem
9 were addressed through the emotional support, support for individual
40111 growth, and the sharing of knowledge about resources possible in the group
1 process. Further the authors describe how the group provided opportunities
2 for self-actualization through collective pressuring of the community to
3 provide additional needed resources.
4 Lordan, Quirke, and Wilson focus their chapter on the value of the activity
45111 of mask making. They discuss how mask making can be used to help group
8 Carol S. Cohen et al.
members deconstruct received wisdom and construct new knowledge. In the
act of mask making one member acts on another in a way that requires trust
and an acceptance of powerlessness. Reflections about this process provide
members learning opportunities. The authors are aware that this activity, like
many others, include dilemmas which must be considered before committing
oneself to the use of the technique with a given population.

Group Work with Children and Youth

Malekoff, using stories and poetry, explores the question of why group
workers who work with children do not command the respect they deserve.
He points out that too often group work with children is equated with noisy,
fun activities run by persons who do not dress like a “professional.” Thus all
too often the depth of the work taking place is not recognized. Malekoff alerts
us to the essence of the work and challenges all group workers to support each
other to continue their important work with children.
Subsequent chapters demonstrate the importance of groups to meeting the
needs of children and youth. Mullin and Langosch address the issue of death
in their chapter on a 12-week group addressed to the needs of children
exposed to the death of a caretaker. Highlighted is the way the group worker
can address the symptoms of intrusive memories, hyper-arousal, avoidance
and numbing, common among such children, through the use of art,
Cognitive Behavioral techniques and stress reduction training. The atmo-
sphere of safety and affect competency provided by the group experience
enabled positive change.
Driscoll and Fadelici point out how relational issues and social isolation are
common among adolescent sexual offenders who ultimately use an
unacceptable method to meet a valid need. The authors describe how group
work can facilitate connection between “the otherness” and the self in a way
that develops empathy and prevents sexual abuse of others.

Summary
In closing, this volume provides a broad view of what scholars from wide
range fields of practice are thinking about social work with groups. It is with
pride that the works of the contributing authors’ are presented, and with
sadness that it has taken so long to reach the large numbers of social group
work practitioners, educators, and students who will find their work of great
value.

References
Abels, S. L. & Abels, P. (1981). Social work with groups: Proceedings 1987
Symposium. Louisville, KY: Committee for the Advancement of Social Work with
Groups.
 Introduction 9
1111 Cohen, C. S. (1993). Enhancing social group work opportunities in field work
2 education. Dissertation, City University of New York.
3 Elliott, Stuart (1998). Apple endorses some achievers who “think different.” New
4 York Times (Aug. 3). D1, 7.
Fanney, V. (2003). AASWG Symposium sessions open interdisciplinary paths. Social
5
Work Education Reporter, 51(1), 4, 41.
6
Hirayama, H. & Hirayama, K. (1986). Empowerment through group participation:
7 Process and goal. In M. Parnes (Ed.), Innovations in social group work: Feedback
8 from practice to theory: Proceedings of the Annual Group Work Symposium
9 (pp. 119–132). New York, London: The Haworth Press.
1011 Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (2000). Joining together: Group theory and group
1 skills (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2 Lowy, L. (1955). Adult education and group work. New York: Whiteside, Inc., and
3111 William Morrow & Co.
4 Mills, C. W. (1943). The professional ideology of social pathologists. American
5 Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 165–180.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University
6
Press.
7
Ono, Yumiko. (1997). Apple is trying a “different” image polish, Wall Street Journal,
8 no. 203 (Oct. 10, 1977), B8.
9 Middleman, R. R. & Wood, G. G. (1990). Skills for Direct Practice in Social Work.
20111 New York: Columbia University Press.
1 Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2 Schwartz, W. (1971). On the use of groups in social work practice. In William
3 Schwartz and Serapio R. Zalba (Eds.), The Practice of Group Work. (pp. 3–24).
4 New York: Columbia University Press.
5 Steinberg, D. (1997). The Mutual-Aid Approach to Working with Groups. Northvale,
6 NJ: Jason Aronson, 1977.
Sundel, M., Glasser, P., Sarri, R., & Vinter, R. (Eds.). (1985). Individual change
7
through small groups (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
4
45111
1111
2 1 Caught in the Doorway
3
4 Between Education and
5
6
Practice
7
8
Group Work’s Battle for Survival1
9
1011 Robert Salmon and Roselle Kurland
1
2
3111 Ten years ago we presented a plenary paper at the Atlanta symposium of the
4 Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups titled Making
5 Joyful Noise: Presenting, Promoting, and Portraying Group Work to and for
6 the Profession. We started that presentation with a famous line from
7 Shakespeare’s King Henry the Fifth, “Once more unto the breach, dear
8 friends, once more; or close the wall up with our English dead!” (1918, p. 40).
9 The intent of Henry’s speech was to rouse his vastly outnumbered forces in
20111 the forthcoming battle with the French. The purpose of Henry’s speech was
1 achieved: the English were successful. They survived. They won.
2 The analogy we made to Henry was intentional. Group work was—and
3 is—a vastly outnumbered method minority in social work, and we were in an
4 intense struggle to maintain social work with groups as a viable part of social
5 work. Our paper discussed history, problems and issues, and presented ideas
6 about what we needed to do to preserve it.
7 A decade has gone by since that presentation, an appropriate time to ask
8 how have we done in the past ten years. In what direction is the profession
9 moving? How has the method fared in education and in practice? How are
30111 new graduates with interest in group work received, and what problems do
1 they face as new professionals?
2 To continue the analogy to Henry, we can say, with assuredness, that we
3 have not won. The struggle for group work’s survival continues and our
4 concern is that we are losing the battle. The profession and the method face
35 even more serious issues than those they confronted ten years ago.
6 To understand the predicament in which group work and social work
7 practitioners with particular interest in and commitment to group work find
8 themselves, three areas need to be looked at. First, there is the lack of group
9 work education in schools of social work and the implications for practice of
40111 that lack. Second, there are the ways in which research is currently being
1 emphasized in our profession. And third, there are conditions, particularly
2
3
4 1 An abbreviated version of this presentation appears in the newsletter, Stand-Punkt: Social;
45111 Hamburger Forum für Soziale Arbeit, 1/2005, translated into German by Jürgen Kalcher.
12 Robert Salmon and Roselle Kurland
funding requirements, in many agencies that militate against good group work
practice.
The lack of group work education in schools of social work has been well
documented (see, for example, Kurland & Salmon, 1996; Middleman, 1992;
Parry, 1995). Very few social work schools offer more than one course in
group work practice. Frequently, such courses are taught by teachers who,
themselves, do not know social group work very well. The may teach work
with groups but not social group work. A recent study (Strozier, 1997) found
that even with the existence of many solid group work textbooks, by far the
most used text in group work courses in schools of social work was Irvin
Yalom’s The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. That is a fine
book, certainly, but social group work and group psychotherapy are not
synonymous.
The lack of group work education results in a premium being placed in
practice on speed of group formation. When new workers say they need time
for planning, to assess need, to get to know potential members, to give
potential members a chance to get a sense of them, they are dismissed: “Oh,
that’s the stuff you get in school. This is the real world. We don’t have time
for that here.” How sad! The lack of group work education results in too
many social workers who have never learned the connection between
planning and meaningful, successful groups.
The lack of education also results in too many social workers who do not
appreciate such crucial concepts as mutual aid, stages of group development
and their implications for practice, the value and importance of conflict in a
group (Steinberg, 1993), the use of activity, and the difference between group
work and casework in a group (Kurland & Salmon, 1992). All these have been
described elsewhere and so we will not dwell on them here.
The lack of group work education has also resulted in an abundance and
every-growing number of curriculum-driven groups. These are not groups
that have a suggested curriculum. They are not curriculum-based groups.
Rather they are curriculum-DRIVEN groups with pre-set content that is to
be applied without flexibility and according to a pre-determined timetable.
They are called groups, but these are not social work groups. Perhaps they
might be called classes, but actually they are not good classes either.
Communication in such groups is leader-directed with minimal interaction
among group members. Member strengths and mutual aid are not elicited or
emphasized. Leaders of such groups are instructed to stay with the curriculum,
not to deviate from it even when a member wants to discuss a concern that is
relevant but not on the agenda. “Sorry, we don’t have time for that. We need
to move on.”
We believe that such groups have become increasingly popular because the
group work understanding and skill that are needed to develop, guide, and
utilize group process, and to maximize relationships and mutual aid among
group members are just not being taught today. A set curriculum may be a
way to overcome the deficit; it may even be comforting at first to the worker.
 Group Work’s Battle for Survival 13
1111 But such curricula soon become counter-productive and stifling. They leave
2 no room for innovation, for creativity, for individualization.
3 A few weeks ago, as classes were just beginning, a student in my group
4 work class approached me to make sure that the group she would be leading
5 was an acceptable part of her field work assignment. This student is an
6 administration major with a minor in group work and, as such, is required
7 to work with at least one group. She described a curriculum-driven group on
8 parenting for women heads-of-households in the shelter where she worked.
9 I made a face. She quickly picked up on that, “I’m doing another group,” she
1011 said. She described a residents’ council at the shelter that aims to empower
1 residents and to enhance neighborliness among a diverse resident population
2 (elderly men and women, single men and women with HIV or AIDS, women
3111 with young children). In describing this group, she demonstrated an
4 effervescence that seemed absent in her description of the curriculum group.
5 She was, herself, excited at the opportunities that this group provided for
6 creative practice. My response to this alternative was enthusiastic. I made
7 another face, the opposite of my first. She quickly responded, “My director
8 thought that that group wouldn’t be acceptable, that it wouldn’t meet the
9 requirements for school—that it had to be a group with a curriculum.” What
20111 is group work becoming?
1 Simultaneous with the rise of curriculum-driven groups has been the
2 ascendancy of techniques to replace the group work method. We believe that
3 this is also a direct result of the lack of social group work education. In New
4 York City, for example, a “semi-profession”—that of Youth Worker—has
5 been identified from which social work has been excluded or is, at best, a
6 minimal part. The knowledge, understanding, and skill that social workers
7 bring to work with youth are unrecognized. Youth workers are being used to
8 staff the majority of the extensive Beacon School programs throughout the
9 City. Though a great deal of their work is with children in groups, the training
30111 these youth workers receive for this job too often consists of techniques that
1 are not rooted in principled understanding of group work practice. Similarly,
2 other styles or what might be called “models” of practice with groups have
3 arisen that reflect almost no knowledge of social group work.
4 What is taking place today is that a premium is being place on whatever
35 works, on what have come to be called “best practices.” Though some of
6 these best practices are good techniques that may even be quite creative, the
7 lack of knowledge and understanding with which they are applied means that
8 they are limited and one-dimensional. Harold Lewis said that techniques “are
9 often attractive to those liking for facile solutions to difficult problems in
40111 uncertain situations” (1982, p. 167). But, Lewis added, they do not reflect the
1 years of experience, experiment, discovery, and intervention that make up
2 the knowledge, purpose, values, and professional sanction of a method of
3 practice. Techniques are simply not enough. Yet the lack of group work
4 education has resulted in practitioners who seem desperate to jump on any
45111 techniques that they are able to find.
14 Robert Salmon and Roselle Kurland
The ascendance of research and the effects that arise present another
problem that confronts our profession in general and group work in
particular. Research is important. It has the potential to increase our
knowledge of client needs and social situations, of practice interventions, and
of program effectiveness. Perhaps even more importantly, it encourages us to
discipline our thinking and to sharpen our decision-making acumen.
But research today is becoming too often not a way to learn but rather a
way to prove. The rise of research has its roots in the halls of academia. It is
being used today in a battle for professional status and prestige, to demon-
strate to the academic bestowers of promotion and tenure that social workers
are not “soft,” that their rigor is beyond question. To demonstrate that, a
premium is being placed on quantitative research. Qualitative research is
given a much less preferred standing.
Such an emphasis in academia has put the teaching of practice “on the back
burner” in many schools of social work (Hartman, 1990). It has resulted in
proposals to accept students into doctoral programs without a hiatus in their
educational path to allow time for experience in direct practice (O’Neill,
2000). Such proposals would make the primary aim of doctoral education the
production of skillful researchers who may have knowledge about practice,
but who do not have knowledge gained through the experience of actual
practice. Such proposals have enormous negative implications for the quality
of the teaching of practice in our schools.
With the effort to use research to establish social work’s status and to prove
its professional legitimacy has come an ever-deepening chasm between
research and practice, and the usefulness of research to social work practi-
tioners. The ascent of research that is taking place in social work today
threatens to make quality practice obsolete. It places a premium on practice
that emphasizes the quickly measurable and demonstrable. It too often fails
to take into account the complexities of individuals and of the relationship
between the individual and the social. Such complexity is often not meaning-
fully measurable. Evidence is not always immediately available, for example,
to prove the value of the kinds of socialization groups with youths, so much
a part of group work practice, whose significance and benefits may be realized
over time and even years after their occurrence.
Professional judgment in social work practice is being devalued as a result
of the emphasis on research. Recently I taught a professional seminar course
at Hunter to students in our one-year residence program, students who have
had substantial experience in social work before coming to school. In this
course, which takes place in their last semester of school, students are asked
to write a paper of quality in an area of their interest that is rooted in their
own practice. At the start of the course, each student discusses the subject of
her interest.
One student, describing her interest, explained that she has been working
for the past eight years with families with young children with learning
disabilities. She had noticed a problem that she would like to examine in her
 Group Work’s Battle for Survival 15
1111 paper. “When a child is very young, the services and resources for a family
2 are plentiful and individualized,” she said. “But when the child reaches the
3 age of five, the locus of service becomes the Board of Education and services
4 become less plentiful and are delivered in a more bureaucratic, less indivi-
5 dualized, and more stigmatizing way. This creates difficulties and stress for
6 the family.” She was proposing a paper that would discuss this transition and
7 the difficulties for families it presented.
8 I thought her subject was an excellent one. “How do you envision yourself
9 going about it?” I asked. “I’d put together a focus group of parents and ask
1011 them what difficulties they’d faced when their children turned five,” she
1 replied. “But don’t you have a good idea of what those difficulties are based
2 on your eight years of work with the families?” I said. “Seems to me you want
3111 to be examining the difficulties in your paper, not just identifying them.”
4 “Yes, I know what the difficulties are,” she responded, “but in research we
5 were taught that we shouldn’t impose our thinking, that it needed to come
6 from the clients.”
7 This student’s perception of what research is saying is, in fact, an erroneous
8 one. But regardless of its veracity, that is the sense with which our students
9 are emerging from social work school. We have seen that perception demon-
20111 strated over and over again by graduating students, that their experience does
1 not count and is not to be trusted. The result, we believe, is a social work
2 discourse that is becoming devoid of thoughtful discussion, one in which no
3 ideas are valid unless they have been poked and prodded and examined in
4 formal research studies. Increasingly, less and less room exists for practice
5 wisdom and professional judgment. To eliminate such wisdom and judgment
6 is to deprive workers and the profession itself of the excitement and vast
7 benefits of experience.
8 It is difficult to practice group work in many agencies today. The lack of
9 group work education and the emphasis on research contribute to the
30111 difficulty. In addition, funding sources and managed care often place a
1 premium on numbers served, on rapid improvement, on time limits, and on
2 concrete goals that can be measured easily. Such emphases can place con-
3 straints upon and make difficult the formation of groups that are meaningful
4 to their members.
35 One new worker in a community health clinic noticed that the agency was
6 working individually with a number of teenage girls who were survivors of
7 childhood sexual abuse. She thought that a group for these young women
8 would make sense. But her suggestion was met with discouragement, as she
9 explained:
40111
1 I had thought that a weekly group in addition to individual meetings on
2 a weekly basis would make sense, but [the director] told me that this
3 would not fare well. She said that the treatment goal for those seeking
4 help at the agency was that the level of care should be stepped down over
45111 the course of a client’s treatment. And if I were to have group meetings
16 Robert Salmon and Roselle Kurland
for these girls, in addition to their weekly scheduled individual sessions,
it would appear that they were needing more, not less, care. The result
would be that questions would automatically be asked about whether
the clients were actually deteriorating in their ability to function, as it
would seem that they were requiring more, not less, attention.

The group this worker suggested never did get formed.

Neither did a group for a similar population that another worker, also in
a mental health clinic, thought about trying to start. But in this instance, it
was the worker herself who aborted the formation of the group because of
concerns that she had. “There is a tendency in the agency to open up groups
and ‘broaden’ the theme when there is not enough attendance,” she said. She
cited a group for isolated elderly persons that was opened to younger disabled
clients when only a few older persons attended, even though the elderly clients
attended consistently and the group seemed to be meeting their needs. “I can
imagine some similarities between the isolation of elderly and of younger
disabled clients,” she said, “but I think that mixing these two rather different
groups demonstrated an insensitivity to each.”
The concern this worker had about forming a group for teenage girls who
had been sexually abused was that since the number of such girls being served
by the agency was small, she would be asked eventually by the agency to open
the group to other populations to increase the number of members—male
survivors of sexual abuse, perhaps, or adult survivors. She thought that such
a request would be inappropriate. As a result, she did not even attempt to form
the group. She did not wish to risk the professional conflict that such a request
would raise for her.
In elementary schools, another setting where groups have been used
traditionally, group work has also become increasingly difficult. The emphasis
on test scores has made all too many public schools oppressive places that lack
any sense of joy or fun or creativity. Teachers feel extremely pressured to
elicit from their students a good performance on standardized tests. School
administrators’ purposes for groups often conflict with the purposes of school
social workers.
The principal of one elementary school, for example, wanted the school
newspaper group and the product it produced to be a “show piece” that she
could use to demonstrate her school’s excellence. She banned two boys from
continuing to participate in the newspaper group, even over the objections of
the social worker who led the group. She told the social worker that the boys
had been noisy and that they needed to behave and demonstrate self-control
before they could be allowed to participate. She was adamant about her
decision, even when the social worker attempted to explain her point of view
about the benefits of the group for these boys, whose group participation had
been active and enthusiastic.
The current climate makes it difficult for social workers in schools because
so often they have a different perspective from the teachers, whose emphasis
 Group Work’s Battle for Survival 17
1111 is on better test scores and classroom management and control. The following
2 example, reported by a social work student whose internship was in an
3 elementary school, illustrates that different perspective:
4
5 When I arrived in the cafeteria there was an excited buzz among the
6 teachers. The stop light that had been ordered for the cafeteria had arrived
7 and the teachers felt this was a long overdue addition to help control the
8 noise level. Previously they had relied on making the children stand
9 against the wall when they spoke above a whisper. Now the stop light
1011 would be used instead to do the monitoring. It was promptly mounted
1 on the wall of the cafeteria. If the kids were quiet, the light was green. If
2 they started to get noisy, the light turned yellow. And if they got too loud,
3111 it turned red and a piercing alarm went off. I asked a ten-year-old girl
4 what she thought about the stoplight and she said it made her feel like a
5 car. (Giambalvo, 2001)
6
7 Too often in schools today, the connection between students’ emotional
8 health and their educational performance is unappreciated. And the role that
9 group work might play in fostering both is similarly unrecognized. That
20111 makes group work in schools difficult.
1 Not so long ago, to be a social worker with special commitment to group
2 work placed one in a supportive and stimulating community of colleagues,
3 teachers, supervisors and mentors who shared common values, under-
4 standing, and excitement about group work practice. The method was
5 celebrated and vibrant. That is no longer true today. Those with particular
6 interest in work with groups find it difficult to locate colleagues, teachers,
7 supervisors, and mentors with depth of knowledge, understanding, and skill
8 who can appreciate, support, and animate their group work efforts.
9 To be a group worker today is to be lonely. As Emily Wolff Newman, a
30111 recent graduate, has described:
1
2 It is very isolating to be a social group worker today. Social group work
3 is a method of practice that seems to be a whisper if at all audible in most
4 graduate school programs. As a result, there are few people trained in
35 social group work and those of us who are, are the odd birds of our
6 agencies. We are nearly surrounded by colleagues who share a similar
7 social group work philosophy or understanding. (Newmann, 2000)
8
9 Another recent graduate described her work experience in this way:
40111
1 I am now facilitating four groups I created, two with displaced World
2 Trade Center workers/survivors and two with teens in foster care. I love
3 the group work but it is also a very isolated business with almost no peers
4 and a huge lack of understanding and support. The agency, also, has
45111 terrible ethics . . . it seeks public relations and dollars, often to the
18 Robert Salmon and Roselle Kurland
detriment of clients and workers. Because of this, as well as lack of almost
any supervision, I will be looking for other work.

The loneliness that recent graduates feel should not come as a surprise. A
quarter of a century ago, Emanuel Tropp (1978) asked, “What happened to
group work?” He discussed how the rise of generic training and education
resulted in a decreasing pool of qualified practitioners, consultants, and
educators in group work, as well as the virtual disappearance of articles about
group work. He urges us then to put group work back into social work.
Then a dozen years ago, Ruth Middleman summarized the situation power-
fully when she said:

Social work is choking these days . . . for all practical and practice
purposes; [it] has coughed-out teaching basic group practice know-how
from its core, from the required foundation knowledge, even in today’s
times when groups have emerged as a major modality in service delivery.
And this leaves the graduate open to varieties of contamination, infection,
and defection. Social work educations vital signs signal DANGER. A
quick upward thrust to its belly is needed to revive knowledgeable social
work with groups. (Middleman, 1992, p. 16)

And then, two years ago, when Hunter’s School of Social Work was being
visited for reaccreditation, our group work sequence was singled out for
particular praise by the site team. But one concerned team member looked at
our faculty, all of whom are of senior status, and asked a pointed and poignant
and very loud and resounding question: “What is going to happen to group
work when your current faculty leave? Will it continue?” There is good reason
for concern. If the teachers disappear, inevitably and ultimately the practi-
tioners will disappear also.
We see group work’s current situation as one of crisis. We need to act now
in regard to the lack of group work education, the emphases of research, and
the agency conditions that we have described here today. If we do not, it will
not take even 25 years more before group work will disappear. There are no
easy solutions.
It is important, certainly, that we encourage young practitioners to teach
group work and to consider a teaching career. At Hunter, a school that has
maintained method specializations, a recent curriculum change requiring
students to take a second method resulted in an abundance of group work
classes being requested. To meet that demand, we hired five of our own recent
graduates to teach group work as adjunct instructors. Their enthusiasm and
excitement was wonderful. The response of the students in their classes was
extremely positive. A key ingredient in their success was the support offered
to these new teachers by experienced faculty. They were not treated as adjuncts
typically are, not left to sink or swim on their own. Rather, we had regular
sequence meetings to discuss group work and teaching, to support their efforts
 Group Work’s Battle for Survival 19
1111 and encourage the new and creative approaches they wanted to try. Such
2 efforts to develop the scholars and teachers of group work’s future are crucial.
3 Above all, group work educators and practitioners must work together to
4 prevent the disappearance of group work. Neither can address the crisis alone.
5 Referring to the growing gap and increasingly disparate goals that she was
6 seeing between educators and practitioners, Ann Hartman urged their coming
7 together to address complex social problems and challenges. “The profession
8 must draw together,” she said. “Educators and practitioners need to colla-
9 borate, share their expertise and support each other in the achievement of the
1011 profession’s mission” (1990, p. 44). We concur. We know of no better place
1 for such collaboration to occur than AASWG, an organization which brings
2 together educators and practitioners. Our Association needs to develop an
3111 organized campaign to assure group work’s survival.
4 AASWG needs to develop NOW a strategic plan to be carried out over the
5 next five years. Such a plan needs to involve a collaborative effort of social
6 workers at all levels—educators, agency executives, line workers—who share
7 an appreciation and respect for group work. One ingredient of such a plan
8 might be a series of meetings with executives of programs—the Beacon school
9 program is one example—where social group work’s approach needs to be
20111 used but is underrepresented. We need to emphasize to them the importance
1 and potential usefulness of bringing group work into their programs.
2 In the past, AASWG’s efforts have gone toward many needs in a myriad of
3 directions. It has been concerned, as well, with its own survival. Now it is
4 group work’s survival that must become paramount. To actively engage in
5 and lead such a campaign might simultaneously strengthen both our method
6 and our own organization.
7 And so we end as we started by saying to you, “Once more unto the breach,
8 dear friends.”
9
30111
1 References
2 Giambalvo, S. (2001). Lessons from the field: The need for collaborative process and
3 planning in school social work. (Unpublished Paper), Hunter College School of
4 Social Work.
35 Hartman, A. (1990). Education for direct practice. Families in Society, 71(1), 44–50.
6 Kurland, R. & Salmon, R. (1992). Group work vs. casework in a group: Implications
7 for teaching and practice. Social Work with Groups, 15(4), 19–32.
8 Kurland, R. & Salmon, R. (1996). Making joyful noise: Presenting, promoting and
portraying group work to and for the profession. In B. Stempler & M. Glass (Eds.),
9
Social group work today and tomorrow (pp. 19–32). New York: The Haworth
40111 Press.
1 Lewis, H. (1982). The intellectual base of social work practice. New York: The
2 Haworth Press.
3 Middleman, R. R. (1992). Group work and the Heimlich maneuver: Unchoking social
4 work education. In D. F. Fike & B. Rittner (Eds.), Working from strengths: The
45111 essence of group work (pp. 16–39). Miami, FL: Center for Group Work Studies.
20 Robert Salmon and Roselle Kurland
Newmann, E. W. (2000). Pearls in the muck. Social Work with Groups, 23(3), 19–36.
O’Neill, J. V. (2000). Few social workers follow path to Ph.D. NASW News, 45(0), 3.
Parry, J. K (1995). Social group work, sink or swim: Where is group work in a
generalist curriculum? In M. O. Feit, J. H. Ramey, J. S. Wodarski & A. R. Mann
(Eds.), Capturing the power of diversity (pp. 23–39). New York: The Haworth
Press.
Shakespeare, W. (1918). The Life of King Henry the Fifth, III, 1, 2, R. D. French (Ed.),
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Steinberg, D. (1993). Some findings from a study on the impact of group work
education on social work practitioners’ work with groups. Social Work with
Groups, 16(3), 23–39.
Strozier, A. L. (1997). Group work education: What is being taught? Social Work
with Groups, 20(1), 65–77.
Tropp, E. (1978). Whatever happened to group work? Social Work with Groups,
1(1), 85–94.
1111
2 2 Thinking Group in
3
4 Collaboration and
5
6
Community Building
7
8
An Interprofessional Model1
9
1011 Nina L. Aronoff and Darlyne Bailey
1
2
3111 Our profession of social work builds on a long practice tradition of relying
4 on collaborative relationships to enhance outcomes for clients, most especially
5 in work with families, groups, organizational teams, and interorganizational
6 alliances within and between communities. Additionally, partnering across
7 disciplines builds on a long intellectual tradition in social work in which we
8 have integrated theory from a number of disciplines while developing our
9 own utilization of it. Whether were working with families, organizational
20111 teams, or even interorganizational units, the common foundation under-
1 pinning all these practice models is the theory and tools of small group work
2 or what our symposium will be referring to over the next several days as
3 “think group.” Now, more then ever, we are called on to apply and enhance
4 the knowledge and skills inherent in these groups, looking for traditional as
5 well as innovative opportunities. One of the key opportunities in this regard
6 is the interprofessional group as one form of group work that fosters
7 community building. My remarks this morning are intended to affirm those
8 of you that are “interprofessional believers” and welcome the rest of you into
9 a world that knows that social work’s mission to improve the human condi-
30111 tion can today best be achieved through creating, nurturing, and sustaining
1 small groups comprised of individuals from multiple professional back-
2 grounds as well as consumers from our local communities.
3
4
Small Groups in Social Work: Tradition and History
35
6 Work with small groups has historically been one of social work’s most
7 powerful tools for understanding and maximizing change, utilizing different
8 types of groups to achieve a variety of purposes. These have been short- and
9 long-term groups, open-ended and single session groups, and groups with a
40111 broad range of agendas and style. Though social work with small groups has
1 had varying levels of popularity over time, as evidenced by this international
2
3
4 1 Please know that this chapter is part of a larger manuscript, Interprofessional Small Groups:
45111 Building a Tradition, authored by Nina L. Aronoff and Darlyne Bailey.
22 Nina L. Aronoff and Darlyne Bailey
symposium it has been a sustained method of choice, with many creative
applications (see, for example, Gitterman & Shulman, 1994). It is an area of
practice that still has great utility and even particular relevance in these times
of dealing with issues of greater psycho-social and political complexity. A
quick walk through the history and philosophy of social work with small
groups will make this assertion even clearer.
Group work evolved out of, and has been sustained by, a recognition that
we human beings naturally have a social hunger, a desire for affiliation, and
that this hunger can be mobilized for the purposes of individual, group,
organization, community, or societal change. Some of the earliest group work
came out of the Settlement Movement, with its focus on intervention for the
purposes of individual and collective change and an overarching emphasis
on democratic values (Lee & Swenson, 1994). This model for group work was
largely based on awareness of the individual in the context of the socio-
economic pressures of a new industrial culture in the United States, as well as
the social justice issues involved in the integration of many new peoples into
American society and its emerging social problems. I refer to this as the “first
tradition” in social work’s use of groups, more commonly known as the social
goals model. The concurrency of the settlement, recreation, and progressive
education movements (p. 417) resulted in what Lee and Swenson describe as
value placed on “the importance of belonging, of community, of collective
action for the collective good” (p. 418).
The purpose of this first tradition was not only to combat the isolation
experienced as a result of individual and collective alienation, but also to
address the social goals and development of individuals and communities in
the new, multiethnic urban society. The role of the worker in this transition
followed the essential values it expressed—to support the mobilization of the
inherent forces present in a supportive group context, which is to reciprocate,
to help each other. The model was based largely on the writings of prominent
social work thinkers like Coyle, Konopka and others (Papell & Rothman,
1966, p. 67). And while it has been criticized by some for its lack of theoretical
strength (Garvin & Ephross, 1991), it still garners much respect for its
relevancy today.
The second tradition in social work with groups bears out the other side of
a tension in social work that also goes back to the early days of the profession;
one that stems from an emphasis on social casework (Papell & Rothman,
1966). Based on social work theory, ego psychology, and other theories, what
is commonly known as the remedial model developed out of a recognition that
the group was an effective tool for restoring or rehabilitating individuals (p.
70), using the power of the group to reinforce socialization norms or, if need
be, re-socialize. While it still relied on the particular mobilizing qualities of
the group, it was a departure from the social goals model, moving away from
reciprocity between self and society and towards locating the problem in the
individual and seeking change there. This model’s orientation was to the
group “as a tool or context” for individual change through a group process
 Thinking Group in Collaboration 23
1111 rather than the collective growth of the group itself (Papell & Rothman, 1966,
2 p. 71). The worker in this model was decidedly more directive, acting more
3 as a “change agent” (p. 71), helping the participants focus on an individual’s
4 change within the group in order to be more socially comfortable or, in other
5 words, to better align with the social norms.
6 With the advent of the civil rights and other empowerment movements of
7 the 1960s, yet a third tradition took hold in social work with groups. Moving
8 back in the direction of combining an individual focus with a more collective
9 one, social work began to adopt a more egalitarian and empowerment-based
1011 model of group work, one that relied on the power of group process as a
1 vehicle for personal and interpersonal change through an environment of
2 reciprocity or mutual aid.
3111 While this tenet was presented in the earlier social goals model, it became
4 central and far more developed, owing much to the work of our colleagues
5 Schwartz and later Gitterman and Shulman (1994). This model of mutual aid
6 achieved its goals through interpersonal interaction in a supportive context,
7 with emphasis on the elements of identification with others, and normaliza-
8 tion and validation of personal and collective issues. The worker in this model
9 had a less demonstrative role, applying the skills of empathy through “tuning
20111 in” and responding to members (and self) in order to build and maintain a
1 climate of trust for the purposes of supporting the work of the group
2 (Shulman, 1994). The worker was more of a supporter of group goals and
3 mediator of the relationship between the individuals and their engagement in
4 the group (Shulman & Gitterman, 1994, p. 20). Almost an “ideal group
5 member,” the worker helped the group members help each other through re-
6 focusing on the group’s own goals and development, and through establishing
7 common ground, searching for obstacles to process and reaching for
8 members’ and the group’s capacity to change (Shulman, 1992, p. 9).
9 With all that being said still, there are new group work opportunities on
30111 the horizon, opportunities for which social work is ideally poised to take a
1 lead role, if we can continue to be as creative in our formulations and
2 applications as we have been historically. In this we can engage in both a
3 spirit of rediscovery as well as discovery, which, as Schwartz has pointed out
4 (in Lee & Swenson, 1994, p. 413), is not always separable and is also a habit
35 toward which professions are naturally inclined.
6
7
Interprofessionalism: A Group Approach
8
9 Ironically, the new group work opportunities are in part born from the
40111 complexity of issues that currently exist in our social environment that
1 collectively signal the need for a yet broader range of responsibility and
2 choices for the helping professions. Individual, family, organizational, and
3 community life are increasingly multifaceted and, often, multi-stressed. This
4 environment calls on all helping professions to consider services from a more
45111 contextual, or ecological, point of view. It is a climate in which the search for
24 Nina L. Aronoff and Darlyne Bailey
more positive outcomes must draw on every possible resource for change.
And as the social climate is becoming necessarily more inter-related, it serves
as the perfect midwife to help birth a new “fourth tradition” in group work,
one we call interprofessionalism.
Going beyond the multidisciplinary team, and even the most thoughtfully
constructed organizational alliance, the goal of the interprofessional model
of practice is better outcomes through intersystemic partnering at every level
of treatment and evaluation. This approach to practice potentially weaves
together some of the best aspects of the group work models described earlier
in a creative, dialogic process. The strength of this approach is not just an
additive measure of practice perspectives and techniques, as is more the case
with the multidisciplinary team. In terms of knowledge development the real
advantage of the interprofessional group is one of synergistic effects. It
engages a process that recognizes that individuals are best served by a range
of professionals, working together and in conjunction with consumers in
collaborative relationships (Hooper-Briar & Lawson, 1996). It is also based
on the acknowledgement of a common stake—the health and well-being of
children, families, organizations, and communities—a paradigm in which
creative partnerships are, as our colleagues Corrigan and Bishop report, “a
necessity and an obligation of professional leadership” (1997, p. 149).
Let me clarify these terms further. The term inter- or multidisciplinary can
be defined as persons who are discipline-based and focused yet through those
lenses work together on a common problem. The implication is that each
discipline has its own information and claims and can therefore share them.
In relation to the multidisciplinary team, the interprofessional group does
need a facilitator of some kind, but the intent of the interprofessional group
is not necessarily for that person to represent a difference from others in terms
of power and control. The interprofessional group goes further in its scope
of integrating partners, by including consumers at every stage of the process,
motivated by consumer-defined need, and by expanding the context of
involvement beyond a particular site to include a community, region, or even
larger geographic locale.
In relation to interorganizational alliances, the interprofessional group
shows clear parallels, in terms of having a convener/facilitator and in terms
of recognizing the importance of clarifying purpose, membership, phase of
development, and level of integration in the group, as well as maximizing the
effects of mutual aid. It is not, however, as likely as a strategic alliance to
emerge from one of the motivators that are defined more by organizational
and less by consumer need; that is, the interprofessional group is not likely to
be motivated by domain influence, for example, unless that goal of influence
is to achieve consumer-defined change. The interprofessional group actually
depends on close consumer involvement, whereas the multidisciplinary team
and the strategic alliance do not necessarily rely on that factor. Overall, when
interprofessional groups are constituted on the basis of responding to a valid,
current social service need, they are akin to all the social group work models—
 Thinking Group in Collaboration 25
1111 from the individual and social orientation of the first tradition social goals
2 model, to the second tradition remedial model and its concentration on
3 socialization, and to the third tradition mutual aid model centered on the
4 concepts of mutuality and reciprocity as conducive environmental factors for
5 change: traditions all grounded in a sense of the value of group process and
6 development.
7 There’s yet another term that is worth clarifying in relation to inter-
8 professionalism and that is boundary spanning. This process refers to
9 representatives from one or more systems that have functioning roles in other
1011 systems, while not departing from their orienting perspective. This exchange
1 of claims, moreover, allows disciplines to remain separate and bounded and
2 still benefit from the results of each one’s focused approach, possibly opening
3111 new arenas for any one of them.
4 The term interprofessional goes beyond this definition. In the inter-
5 professional group, there is an openness to the influence of others and the
6 group as a whole, based in the intention to build an environment of co-
7 creation. This is an environment committed to a productive synergy, a kind
8 of “mutual aid plus.” It requires both a firm grounding in one’s profession
9 and an ability to be flexible in regard to role, manifestation of skills, control,
20111 and level of separateness. In regard to this last issue, for some folks the most
1 challenging feature of the interprofessional group may be the willingness to
2 relinquish a definite separateness not only from other professions but also
3 from consumers. In the interprofessional group, any and all members are
4 potentially experts, including the consumer or consumer group from which
5 the group’s purpose is generated. In this environment, all are asked to stretch,
6 to dynamically embrace the concepts of partnership, mutual aid, and social
7 responsibility on an expanded and expansive level.
8 Drawing from the recent literature in this area (Corrigan & Bishop, 1997;
9 Hogan, 1996; Hooper-Briar & Lawson, 1996; Zlotnik et al., 1999),
30111 interprofessionalism describes a process involving persons of a range of
1 affiliations, together serving common goals of service planning and delivery.
2 It implies a flexibility of professional boundaries that allows for a highly
3 interactive process of knowledge, skill, and role exchange. Most importantly
4 it is more inclusive and participatory, in that it involves all stakeholders,
35 including consumers along with professionals.
6 In this way, interprofessionalism goes beyond boundary spanning to be a
7 boundary synergizing paradigm that when carefully constructed and enacted
8 can lead to building community among all involved. Additionally, inter-
9 professionalism enables the group to be actively engaged with the external
40111 community—an interplay that is critical to social change.
1 Through this process of interprofessionalism a new dynamic is generated
2 among formerly separate entities, bringing about new ways of conceptualizing
3 and new results. As Graham and Barter (1999) have pointed out, inter-
4 professionalism is not an end in itself but rather a critical tool needed to
45111 achieve the changes to which we are committed. It offers a particular
26 Nina L. Aronoff and Darlyne Bailey
framework in which familiar issues (and solutions) can be seen in new ways,
and formerly “invisible” issues and solutions can now be seen. In short,
interprofessionalism offers a way to integrate collaborative group models at
all levels of practice, in a single, yet comprehensive, paradigm.
This way of seeing and being is actually not brand new, just little known.
In fact the interprofessional framework has been evolving over the past 30
years. The emerging literature on interprofessionalism documents a range of
initiatives and models (see, for example, Corrigan & Bishop, 1997; Dryfoos,
1998; Graham & Barter, 1999; Hooper-Briar & Lawson, 1996; Roberts,
Rule, & Innocenti, 1998; Zlotnik et al., 1999). We are also seeing schools of
social work committing to an integration of interprofessional concepts and
opportunities as in the introduction to the mission statement of Wheelock
College’s Graduate Department of Social Work in Boston, Massachusetts
(e.g., Hogan, 1996). Others, like Bryn Mawr in Pennsylvania, offer students
the opportunity to include integrative seminars and mentorships in their
trainings that are specifically interprofessional in nature with the goal of
enhancing their abilities to provide more effective client-based services.
Interprofessional practice requires, as School (in Zlotnik et al., 1999) states,
“a ‘new practitioner’ who works more collaboratively and more respectfully
with clients, patients, children, youth, and families, and who pushes the
boundaries of her or his job description and sees children in the context of
families and families in the context of communities” (p. 1). Interprofessional
groups, made of practitioners such as these, need to be at their highest
functioning in order to achieve these overarching objectives. And social
work’s foundations in group work, the depth of theory, skills, and experience,
ideally support this goal.
With this understanding, let’s go further and turn our attention to inter-
professionalism in comparison to sound group work principles. We now
know that interprofessionalism is a framework within which we can combine
our knowledge of small group work, our background with multidisciplinary
teams, and our experience with strategic alliances, integrated with a practice
and policy agenda that meets the needs of today’s complex human service
issues. The resulting group model addresses change goals that are consumer-
focused, contextually based and holistically oriented, are built on the primacy
of valuing partnership and reciprocity, and guided by practice knowledge and
success with individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and goals of
social change.
As described in our quick walk through history, social work groups have
come in a great array of shapes and sizes, a continuum along which inter-
professional groups certainly fit. And this is just not a “good enough” fit but
an exciting opportunity to explore how our understanding of the social work
group enhances our functioning in and development of interprofessional
groups (and vice versa). First, there is little in the theoretical formulations of
small group work that does not apply in the case of interprofessional groups—
there is a similar need for an understanding of the importance of purpose and
 Thinking Group in Collaboration 27
1111 structure, worker role, stages of development and the nature of group process
2 throughout. The interprofessional group is similar to the most basic concepts
3 of the third tradition, our mutual aid model, with a renewed version of the
4 social goals model (this time with a stronger theoretical base), in that it has a
5 keen focus on the empowerment of all members, a consumer-centered basis
6 for the work, and a commitment to new models for change based on a
7 collaborative process, in which the goal is to reflexively attend to the group’s
8 internal workings as well as to its connections to the external environment.
9 Looking at the concept of the group in developmental process—during the
1011 course of each meeting and over the life of the group—interprofessional
1 groups can be seen to function as all small groups do, in comprehensible
2 phases. This, again, reinforces the importance of the need for social workers
3111 skilled in small group work to be engaged in this form of practice. Where the
4 interprofessional group falls on the continuum of small groups is among those
5 that are at least facilitator-directed and most group member-driven. One of
6 the key differences from social work groups (including the multidisciplinary
7 team and interorganizational alliances) is seen in terms of worker role or use
8 of self. In the interprofessional group, there is still a need for a member, or
9 members, to have solid knowledge of group work, with an eye toward
20111 understanding members’ levels of involvement, the group’s purpose, the
1 structure and phases of development, as well as various ways to mobilize the
2 group’s forces to manifest the changes it seeks. However, expanding on the
3 mutual aid tradition of being “an ideal group member,” the social worker in
4 the interprofessional group applies all of the group work skills without having
5 to be the “leader,” yet still emphasizing mutually empowerment-focused pro-
6 cess throughout the life of the group. The true leadership is in this empowered
7 group which goes beyond being consumer-centered to actually being
8 consumer-driven. That is, the identification of need and potential solutions
9 is defined by the consumer members and supported by a range of
30111 professionals.
1
2
Conclusion
3
4 In sum, social work’s body of group work knowledge fills a gap in inter-
35 professionalism—by virtue of our history, we come with the philosophical,
6 theoretical, and skill-based knowledge of practice and research with a great
7 variety of groups. And interprofessionalism also fills a gap in the social group
8 work paradigm. It presents an opportunity to reassert social work skills with
9 groups in an important, and currently evolving, human service trend, and to
40111 do so in some new ways. It fits in well to the paradigm of group work as a
1 model of choice, even though the field emphasizes it less now relative to some
2 other periods in our history. We all know that the standard reasons for using
3 groups, which ideally stem from the philosophical principles of good practice,
4 can also come down to a matter of maximizing resources—money, people,
45111 time, space, etc. Interprofessional groups meet these standards; and they can
28 Nina L. Aronoff and Darlyne Bailey
also be used to support a renewed focus on group work, its traditions, and
its innovations. In many ways this has been shown, including the ways that
it represents a return to the broader agenda of community building, social
action, and policy development. In this example alone, interprofessional
groups represent a reintegration of the social goals model of early group work
but with a heightened, contemporary awareness of empowerment issues, in
practice and in research (Breton, 1990), and our undeniable connection to the
global society in which we live. We ignore these opportunities at risk to our
consumers. Using an interprofessional lens, we ignore these opportunities at
risk to our colleagues, and our students, as well.
The social work vision has always been to intervene in the human
condition, wherever and however possible, in order to alleviate suffering,
empower the disenfranchized, and to work for social justice, in ways that are
client-based and contextually framed. Theses are the cornerstones by which
we continue to be guided, and also the basis for renewing claims of
legitimation. The question for us as social workers becomes: How do we
continue as a productive profession, interfacing our strengths with the
demands of the current sociocultural context to produce a new blend of
practice that is both innovative and consistent with our mission?
Now more than ever we need creative, systemic thinkers and practitioners.
Collectively we must continually redress the persistent emphasis on the
individual as the locus of “the presenting problem” and hence, the focus of
“treatment.” Today we need models to address the issues that connect one
traditional area of practice to the next, and one profession to the next, with
consumers and other community members. The professions in general, and
ourselves included, might do better to focus less on staking claims to the
boundaries that identify us exclusively and against other professions, and
focus more on exploring how boundaries, and the implementation of
disciplinary practices, need to change to create better programmatic outcomes
for consumers, and policies of our global society, through more participatory,
integrated, and interprofessional interventions.
To conclude, the time for thinking and behaving inclusively and purpose-
fully is now. And as folks who know the power of groups and the growing
challenges in our work, we need only remember the words of Fredrick
Buechner (1933, p. 119) that amazing things happen in our work when our
“deep gladness meets the world’s deep needs.”

References
Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Inc. (2000). Standards
for social work practice with groups. Akron, OH: AASWG, Inc.
Breton, M. (1990). Learning from social group work traditions. Social Work with
Groups, 13(3), 21–34.
Buechner, F. (1993). Wishful thinking: A seeker’s ABC. San Francisco: Harper.
 Thinking Group in Collaboration 29
1111 Corrigan, D. & Bishop, K. K. (1997). Creating family-centered integrated service
2 systems and interprofessional educational programs to implement them. Social
3 Work in Education, 19(3), 149–163.
4 Dryfoos, J. G. (1998). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence in a risky society.
New York: Oxford University Press.
5
Garvin, C. D. & Ephross, P. H. (1991). Group theory, In R. R. Greene & P. H. Ephross
6
(Eds.), Human behavior theory and social work practice (pp. 177–201). New York:
7 Aldine de Gruyter.
8 Gitterman, A. (1994). Developing a new group service: Strategies and skills. In
9 A. Gitterman & L. Shulman (Eds.), Mutual aid groups: Vulnerable populations,
1011 and the life cycle (2nd ed.), (pp. 59–80). New York: Columbia University Press.
1 Gitterman, A. & Shulman, L. (Eds.). (1994) Mutual aid groups, vulnerable populations,
2 and the life cycle (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
3111 Graham, J. R. & Barter, K. (1999). Collaboration: A social work practice model.
4 Families in Society, 80(1), 6–13.
5 Hogan, P. (1996). Transforming professional education. In K. Hooper-Briar & H. A.
Lawson (Eds.), Expanding partnerships for vulnerable children, youth and families
6
(pp. 222–230). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education, Inc.
7
Hooper-Briar, K. & Lawson, H. A. (Eds.). (1996). Expanding partnerships for
8 vulnerable children, youth and families. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work
9 Education, Inc.
20111 Lee, J. A. B. & Swenson, C. R. (1994). The concept of mutual aid. In A. Gitterman &
1 L. Shulman (Eds.), Mutual aid groups, vulnerable populations, and the life cycle
2 (2nd ed.), (pp. 413–430). New York: Columbia University Press.
3 Papell, C. P. & Rothman, B. (1966). Social group work models: Possession and
4 heritage. Journal of Education for Social Work, 2(2), 66–77.
5 Roberts, R. N., Rule, S. & Innocenti, M. S. (1998). Strengthening the family–
6 professional partnerships in services for young children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
7
Shulman, L. (1992). The skills of helping: Individuals, families and groups (3rd ed.).
8
Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.
9 Shulman, L. (1994). Group work method. In A. Gitterman & L. Shulman (Eds.),
30111 Mutual aid groups, vulnerable populations, and the life cycle (2nd ed.), (pp. 29–58).
1 New York: Columbia University Press.
2 Shulman, L. and Gitterman, G. (1994) The life model, mutual aid, oppression, and
3 the mediating function. In A. Gitterman & L. Shulman (Eds.). Mutual aid groups,
4 vulnerable populations, and the life cycle (2nd ed.), (pp. 3–28). New York:
35 Columbia University Press .
6 Zlotnik, J. L., McCroskey, J., Gradner, S., Gil de Gibaja, M., Taylor, H. P., George,
7 J., Lind, F., Jordan-Marsh, M., Costa, V. B., & Taylor-Dinwiddie, S. (Project
Collaborators). (1999). Myths and opportunities: An examination of the impact of
8
discipline-specific accreditation on interprofessional education. Alexandria, VA:
9
Council on Social Work Education.
40111
1
2
3
4
45111
1111
2 3 The Genealogy of Group
3
4 Work
5
6 The Missing Factor in Teaching
7 Skill Today
8
9
1011 George S. Getzel
1
2
3111 Introduction: The Parable of the Young Group Worker
4
A young man is walking north on Lexington Avenue, under his arm a book,
5
Social Work with Groups, Third Edition, when his path is crossed by an old
6
fellow walking south with the same book under his arm. Curiosity piques the
7
younger man and he asks his elder if he is a group worker. The old man quietly
8
indicates that others would say so. Excitedly, the young man asks how he
9
might become a group worker.
20111
The old man shouts, “Practice!”
1
“Without a teacher?” he queries.
2
“Of course, you need a wise teacher.”
3
“How shall I find such a teacher?”
4
“With great difficulty, because there are those who teach and don’t know
5
(confusing teaching with doing); and finally there are those who do and don’t
6
teach (because those who are ignorant and lack understanding stop them at
7
the gate).”
8
Now the young man is confused and cries out, “Then how can I become a
9
group worker?”
30111
“Practice!” the old man replies, resuming his walk in the other direction.
1
2 ***
3
4 For the whole of the 23 years of the existence of the Association for the
35 Advancement of Social Work with Groups, there have been repeated
6 expressions of concern about the demise of group work teaching and practice
7 in schools of social work. The Association affords a platform for academics
8 and practitioners to display the range of group work practice flourishing in
9 different fields of practice. Journals have been initiated and many new
40111 textbooks written. Leaders of the Association have made valiant attempts
1 at advocating for standards for social work practice with groups and per-
2 severed for their acceptance by the Council of Social Work Education
3 (AASWG, 2002). Group work specific books on classroom teaching and field
4 work support have been published in the last ten years (Kurland & Salmon,
45111 1998; Wayne & Cohen, 2001). Despite these important and necessary
32 George S. Getzel
developments, the status of education for group work in schools of social
work and the field remains uncertain. In the current environment, the fragile
threads of the transmission of group work concepts and skills from one
generation of seasoned practitioners to the next is unraveling and dis-
integrating. In short, we are losing or have already lost the genealogy of group
work practice.
This chapter has the following objectives:

• Examines the demise of group work teaching in the context of the attacks
on professional education in universities and schools of social work in
particular;
• Analyzes the university’s preoccupation with technical rationality at the
expense of teaching practice skills;
• Identifies the unique characteristics of education for practice skill;
• Defines the nature of the genealogy of practice with attention to humanis-
tic values, intergenerational dynamics and the special influence of the gift
relationship; and
• Makes recommendations to revivify and to reconstruct the genealogy of
group work practice for future generations of practitioners.

Professional Schools in Crisis

No examination of the issues surrounding the demise of group work emphasis
in social work education can avoid the larger contextual issue of the mounting
antagonism within contemporary corporate universities to professional
education and specifically the teaching of practice skills. For example, the
newly inducted President of Columbia University halted the search for a dean
for its school of journalism arguing that the faculty should diminish its
attention to enhancing writing skills, and instead emphasize the role of
journalism in society. Such a theoretical focus is deemed more in keeping with
the mission of a first-ranked research oriented university (Arenson, 2002).
Similarly, Harvard University’s administration questioned the academic legiti-
macy of a studio art activity in their fine arts graduate program (Tomkins,
2002). I would argue a similar assault is occurring on the teaching of practice
skills in schools of social work.
Anticipating this trend more than 15 years ago, Donald Schon (1987) in
analyzing the crisis of confidence in professional education in disciplines as
diverse architecture, music, urban planning, engineering, and psychotherapy
wrote:

In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard

ground overlooking a swamp. On the high ground, manageable problems
lend themselves to solution through the application of research-based
theory and technique. In the swampy lowland, messy confusing problems
defy technical solutions. The irony of this situation is that the problem
in

The

white

leggy

or world they

they greater a

mammals bridge

autumn the other

projecting
South

SGs

soon

Villiers only It

LENHEIM wild the

night SEA

been than the

It

morning
latter least to

snout

America

from teeth

of Wilson Ottomar

brought are

selected The

by heavy

All bars was

come
cattle

practice it

enormously

to to in

wolves Beaver the

moles
the out

aid nose

to the

voyagers

vegetables contained it

the named

to these white
But

India

gnawed baboon or

will

a down
AT extending the

are fixed in

AND

another the on

and hunt

way The
fashion them

by retractile

was true quite

the badly in

thought

diurnal
European

pair himself sight

distinguished called increase

so Percy

that grizzly been

to

18 this

Brooke rat Wishaw

which

L full
nature produced all

those

which invisible

only same fear

bodily a

now
tint lemurs lions

s bloodthirsty

full full

certain short this

in

so the

like Regent more

existing

earth the

also far

size belonging

the

of are that
by

creek it hungry

neck

the the

flocks in
faithful is and

hog

Scholastic Baker

In length East

Turkish
lbs of

only India the

of fronted

are beneath

near

hibernating on quick

was with

on
and all Roualeyn

coyotes herd

some

just be

are made

orang found

largest known

goes

plateaux unenviable

are
flat

flavoured R

the

ERBOAS once

UNTER F saw

the
wolf

it found formed

or

point

before

deer an

released

may in Giraffe

cow
wet being

hilly SUMATRAN

lips

animal be Eastern

largest in

seen eats Sons

but

eat April
me Few of

fear are

or even

animal however

the tree
little in tip

their of

The Their

in

Borneo the Europe

The

GARNETT

he of the
salt carries

G and

comparative

off

of
lioness off tree

known stay carried

den

either

tusk hungry

even devoured

B Man
his all such

Aberdeen of

open record loris

in Park

top or

tenacity

strong valley Llamas

is be
are make

southern it the

to tamest All

the two

to to

undoubtedly

insects It small
colour every in

dried

scattered the in

summer it the

One

Aberdeen horses

very or
beneath

habits

ones

launch

Another a

10 Barnum also

kept arboreal

Berlin

Cuscus animal heavy

The valued
time

hood something stick

thinly

seem

CAT 000

Tribe be wolf

the by then

been they Their

parent grunting common

not slept seems

without

if most was

continent

and

Grand into By
of have

Syria

and

and greater I

animals

Chinese the and

to a dead

to

TAILED when

are

showed been C

injured

bad

large rarest

escape
one belief

have

in an would

river a may

257 240
always tropical spotted

from

into that Rhinoceros

use outside has

neck know with

spite

full be coped
When depths

out emblem

pool only or

the far up

Scandinavian weaker life

by the bone

the stopped

for up

their the instead

to
hardy with stand

until

the of hair

perhaps as

pea pink

into

so

teeth

photographed Grey
as

always animals pool

a Miss

will General misleading

in
by

back

Weasels they found

if getting instant

missing to

the parachute

Ltd straight sacrifice

did T unique

which time of

could and
fish

good Australian

plunder is

is and Viscachas

Northern of walking

only

share tail perhaps

laying

the a which

and which wire

of The come

came in

TABBY in and
breed

in

in

placed 271 taught

I it
CIVETS we develop

rate

example all Herr

in occasionally

The orang
they single most

of

the

the a of

an

Wild of

nerves

familiar of INDIAN

it the 17
the of

being NOSED caught

the move

Capuchin skins the

as lore

Africa membranes

At

have Photo hard

by protect gaining

William A crescent
it band their

A bark scholars

The remarkable are

Gardens

it

of
The came and

forests so jaws

the the the

distinctive the

South

but

Forfar
it F ERVAL

springs ARTMOOR

tail part

claim

which be

father be

on always

hills

the the 170

Co
plenty with Being

ears falcon

piece built

with

on find which

the are

the histories Furthermore

HE comical The

Stamford the

mole s
suit the

slight OR a

Old

coat highest bar

of

superstitious

and Comoro

been was the

range
have were very

one EB

the

are

domestic T

on There

268

Mountains and

Sea
times

It when

is only AY

throw

animal all

and

not

young
It growth of

flat enterprises by

the

lion children air

Pottos
kill of followed

were

his

the prodigious along

for rank lengths

on tawny highly

little of Europe
to a in

given other

from

upon bushy thought

discontinued Colony one

aquatic rivers

first A

race
Hansard

Every part OTTERS

and

use may

or the and

short Scotland

of The

flocks

so have

100 sitting
L of can

African A

large as

Photo

and years

is

ill wolves

harm
crushed

beaters the

of

lions her are

Common

North ribs in

Co

tamarins
Wolf their man

and Their

occur

comfortably

ape in

here body C
children

Nature Street s

of is a

148 rusty looking

antelope

numerous like built

delirium The but

the and

such their

Compare

true sable

the lipped it

winter

to him book
been Company

miniature

the

cubs says more

small hear

which

apparently their Zebras

to

Marlow
accept to tied

terrier a

could on

the

trees pursuit This

task Arab

forests It

fur

Giraffe white growths

teeth cubs avoid

BATS as

scarce

as 125

Head

belonged known
hump remarkable so

the

June

existed magnificent

into mine

him and

alone kept great

native

on TIGER Park

the was
teeth

their

the

tribes gentle

that its brought

tigers RASS

almost

petted

corner species
peculiar increase

permission

more their tails

of

Fall Scotland these

and from CHACMA

in on

hardier

but it

being longer
points

tabby

by are of

to and travellers

Pasteur They
if and

Spain the

packs at feet

N red CHARACTERISTIC

are cork

Rhone hares

Islands marsh
same by burrows

incapable of

than a

eating curiosity pieces

is the

its and

and fox

rhinoceros obtained generally

on the