Group Work in Social Work – Comprehensive Notes

Overview: group work as a core method in social work

• Groups are natural and universal to human experience and to mammals; they are part of everyday life and have professionalized roles in human service professions (psychology, community work, social work, etc.).
• In social work, group work is a major method of achieving social function and is a key option alongside individual work, family work, and work with communities, organizations, or at national levels. It is highlighted as a major method in standards and training.
• Australian Association of Social Work Training Standards explicitly emphasize group work; social workers work with and on behalf of individuals, families, groups, and communities.

Purpose and objectives of group work (why we use group work)

• Main objectives of group work include:
  • Enhancing the individual and the quality of well-being and social development;
  • Resolving personal and interpersonal problems.
  • Using group work to address systemic barriers that hinder full participation and recognition as equal members of society;
  • Protecting the vulnerable from oppression and abuse.
• These objectives align with broader aims of social functioning at multiple levels (individual, family, community, societal).

Definition of social group work (key definition)

• Linsey and Auton (2014) define social group work as:
  • "a method of social recovery" that aims in an informed way, through purposeful group experiences, to help individuals meet individual and group needs and to influence and change personal, group, organization, and community problems."
• This definition links the individual, the group, and broader community issues, underscoring that group work benefits individuals, groups, communities, and society at large.
• Takeaway: group work is not only about benefits to the group as a unit but also about individual benefits and broader social impact.

Why group work over individual intervention in some contexts

• Some communities (e.g., collectivist cultures in Asia and the Pacific) favor group intervention because it aligns with social norms of collaboration and collective action.
• Bringing people with similar life experiences together creates mutual support, a sense of belonging, and opportunities for learning from each other (mutuality).
• Group work can be empowering, offer opportunities to give and receive help, and provide a sense of belonging and shared purpose.
• It can be an economical approach in some settings because one facilitated group session can serve multiple people, though there are debates about overall cost.

Mutuality, learning, and outcomes in group settings

• Mutuality: a social process where individuals with similar experiences support one another.
• Groups offer:
  • Learning opportunities;
  • Hope and optimism;
  • A pathway to reach people who might be unreachable in individual work;
  • An economical approach in terms of servicing multiple people at once (but see cost considerations below).
• Possible outcomes beyond immediate goals include: income, assets, influence, and policy changes (as noted by Crawford and Price/Price and others).

Modules and practical considerations in group work

• A module commonly emphasizes the humanistic tendency to assist or support each other.
• Some people may prefer group work to avoid going to a social worker for individual sessions, yet in group settings there is still an opportunity for social support and learning.
• Group work can provide a platform for others to relate to similar situations and to reach out for help.
• Cost considerations: grouping can be more economical than one-on-one work in terms of scale, but it can also require a larger venue, more time, and skilled facilitation (which adds to costs).
• Disadvantages and challenges commonly discussed:
  • Individuals may receive less attention in larger groups (e.g., two hours with many participants).
  • Groupthink: a tendency for the group to align strongly with shared values, potentially drowning out individual or societal values; confidentiality has limits in groups, hence the need for clear rules.
  • Groups can be expensive to plan and run due to the need for experienced facilitators or co-facilitators (two or more).
  • Power imbalances and cultural differences can lead to harm or injustice within a group (e.g., refugees may be less active or their voices less recognized, with dominance by others).
  • Cultural competence is essential; facilitators may struggle with cultural differences (e.g., Western individualist vs. Indigenous collectivist orientations). This includes challenges when Indigenous or Islander knowledges differ from Western practice.
• Ethical and practical implications:
  • Confidentiality has limited guarantees in group settings; rules are necessary to protect privacy.
  • Facilitators must be culturally competent and reflective of their own values and biases to practice inclusively.
  • Recognize and manage potential harms from power dynamics and lack of voice for marginalized participants.

Key components and core elements of groups

• Crawford and Price (and Price) identify four key components:
  • A number of individuals;
  • Shared objectives;
  • Connections, interactions, and relationships.
• An additional factor emphasized as important: rules (soft or hard) that can be culturally ingrained, environmental, professional, or derived from other sources.
• The purposes of roles in groups:
  • Roles provide direction and help sustain the group.
• Core elements in groups (three identified by Crawford and Price):
  • People coming together;
  • Doing an activity that enables change to happen;
  • Achieving some form of change.
• Question posed to students (not answered in the lecture): what is the optimum number of people in a group? The instructor asks students to read and form their own conclusions.
• Additional note: some authors broaden core elements to include broader outcomes such as income, assets, influence, and policy change.

Classifications of groups (three broad approaches)

• Crawford et al. propose a purpose-based classification with three categories:
  • Remedial groups: focused on social adaptation and individual change (rehabilitation, treatment).
  • Reciprocal groups: individuals help one another; each person contributes and benefits; mutual help.
  • Social goals groups: underpinned by belonging and meaningful participation in society; aimed at social change, new policies, and social action.
• The instructor’s experiential classification (based on years of teaching) includes additional everyday-life and practice-oriented groups:
  • Work groups;
  • Income-generating groups;
  • Spiritual groups (common in religious contexts worldwide);
  • Community action groups;
  • Mentoring groups;
  • Age groups;
  • Problem-solving groups;
  • Family groups.
• Okon (Mundu handout) types of groups (broader/general):
  • Psychotherapy groups;
  • Counseling groups;
  • Growth groups;
  • Psychoeducational groups;
  • Educational groups (psychoeducational is included in the list).
• Task for students: revise and provide their own examples, using Okon’s list as a baseline, and add others as appropriate.

Theories and models informing group work

• Why theories and models matter:
  • They help answer questions about group size, frequency of meetings, meeting places, activity choice, membership, and group duration.
  • They guide practice and help interpreters understand dynamics and outcomes.
• Theories and models mentioned:
  • Decolonizing theories and indigenizing theories (combined emphasis): rooted in indigenous philosophies; recognize that Western rationality and individualism are not universal; group work can be more appropriate in cultures emphasizing collectivity and belonging.
  • Psychodynamic theory: supports exploring past experiences, bringing unconscious material into consciousness, and resolving trauma through group interaction and healing.
  • Cognitive-behavioral theory: groups support and reinforce behavioral change (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous model); participants identify desired changes, set goals, share goals, and develop strategies.
  • Humanism: focuses on human potential and growth within the group space; emphasizes belonging, being heard, freedom of speech, questioning authority, equality, and mutual enrichment.
  • Empowerment theory: emphasizes service users’ responsibility to make their own choices and manage their own affairs; groups enable individuals to define issues, take action, and participate in decision-making; empowerment also has a radical/critical edge aimed at social change and policy influence.
• Culturally inclusive and responsive practice (ASW, 2015): social workers should acknowledge and incorporate other cultures’ knowledges and practice skills, and importantly reflect on their own values and culture to achieve cultural competence.
• Key factors when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (ASW):
  • Respect for, understanding of, and valuing indigenous knowledges;
  • Development of meaningful relationships;
  • Respect for listening and developing trust.
• Implications for practice:
  • Indigenous philosophies emphasize collectivism; group work is often aligned with these values, whereas Western practices emphasize individualism; effective practice requires cultural humility and flexibility.
  • International social workers should value diverse knowledges and think beyond Western forms of social work.

Models of group work (processes and development)

• Important distinction: the term “model” can refer to processes/development of a group, types of groups, or the theories that inform practice; it may be used in different ways.
• Two primary models introduced:
  • Tuckman’s linear stages model (forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning): groups are seen to progress through these stages in a relatively linear sequence.
  • Stage 1: Forming – group formation, getting to know each other, clarifying purpose and tasks.
  • Stage 2: Storming – conflicts and disagreements emerge; challenges to authority and group norms occur.
  • Stage 3: Norming – cohesion develops; understanding grows; productive collaboration.
  • Stage 4: Performing – high effectiveness; interdependence; sustained focus on goals.
  • Stage 5: Adjourning – the group ends; members reflect on achievement and closure; emotions about dissolution.
  • Gallant’s linear model adds a pre-affiliation stage that occurs before forming; this model also includes stages related to power and control, differentiation, separation, and termination, and may emphasize preparation and early dynamics.
• Note: These models are presented as possibilities to consider; some groups may not follow a strictly linear path.

Reflection and practice prompts (closing exercise)

• Reflect on groups you have participated in:
  • Distinguish between informal (family/friend/fvolunteer groups) and professionally facilitated groups.
  • What is common across these groups, and what differs notably in structure, goals, and dynamics?
  • Consider how the theories and models discussed could apply to groups you know (or have data about).
• Suggested exercise: read the recommended handouts (e.g., Mundu, Crawford et al.) and draft your own examples of group types, including at least one remedial, one reciprocal, and one social-goals group, plus an educational/psychoeducational example.

Quick reference: key terms and examples

• Remedial groups: rehabilitation-focused; example concepts: social adaptation, treatment.
• Reciprocal groups: mutual aid; each participant contributes and benefits.
• Social goals groups: aim for social change, belonging, citizenship, and collective action.
• Groupthink: excessive emphasis on group values that may suppress individual or societal concerns.
• Confidentiality: essential in social work, but with limitations in group settings; requires explicit rules.
• Cultural competence: ongoing reflection on one’s own biases and values; respecting and integrating indigenous knowledges and practices.
• Economic considerations: cost of venues and facilitators vs. savings from servicing multiple individuals in one session; debate on overall economy of group work.
• Power dynamics: careful navigation of diverse backgrounds to prevent domination by certain voices (e.g., refugees or marginalized groups).