Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Group Analysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ballhausen-Scharf, B.
Right arrow Articles by Rudnitzki, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Group Conductor and Group Research - Ethical, Conceptual and Technical Problems

Birgitt Ballhausen-Scharf

Dillstrafe 12, D-65195 Wiesbaden, Germany

Gerhard Rudnitzki

Medical Service of the Vocational Training Center for Adolescents, Neckargemund

This article documents the development of a research project - an evaluation study of outpatient group psychotherapy. Shortly after the practical research phase, two groups developed from the original research group, each intending to follow two aspects of the research approach separately, whilst remaining in close contact. Surprisingly, `outcome research' and `process research' developed fairly soon into a field of partly competing and partly reciprocally strengthening influences. The polarizing dynamics of these influences seemed to have both hindered, yet accelerated the research process. The aim of the `process research' group was to observe the influence of the research on the group process, to reflect on it and to communicate it to the `outcome research' group. The first group found instructive interrelations between phenomena in the observed therapy groups and between the two research groups. From our observations, we believe the findings of the `process research' group are valid for research application not only in respect of quality, effectiveness and efficiency, but also for consideration by group conductors and group participants. It is, however; necessary that the group conductor can identify with both the position of the research scientist and that of the person who constantly reflects on the ethical, conceptual and technical implications.

Key Words: ethics of group research • group conductor and the group process • group research • process research

Group Analysis, Vol. 33, No. 4, 469-483 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0533316400334004
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group AnalysisHome page
S. Conway, K. Audin, M. Barkham, J. Mellor-Clark, and S. Russell
Practice-Based Evidence for a Brief Time-Intensive Multi-Modal Therapy Guided by Group-Analytic Principles and Method
Group Analysis, September 1, 2003; 36(3): 413 - 435.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group AnalysisHome page
A. Mittwoch
Our Place in the World of Science: What is at Stake?
Group Analysis, December 1, 2001; 34(4): 431 - 448.
[PDF]

Home page
 Group AnalysisHome page
S. Karterud
Group Analysis in the Age of Evidence-Based Psychology/Psychiatry - Commentary on `Research as an Extended Group Phenomenon: Is "Hard Science" a Sexual Metaphor?' by Chris Evans
Group Analysis, June 1, 2001; 34(2): 312 - 317.
[PDF]

Home page
 Group AnalysisHome page
V. Tschuschke
Research in Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis: `Sexual Metaphors' versus Unconscious `Fantasies of Grandiosity'? a Reply and Commentary to the Article by Chris Evans
Group Analysis, June 1, 2001; 34(2): 317 - 327.
[PDF]