 | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Encounter groups are small (6-20 person) groups, relatively unstructured, which come together to promote human growth through informal interaction.
Origins
editEncounter groups emerged from the T-groups or 'sensitivity training groups' of post-World War Two America.[1] Where the latter were initially mainly concerned with organisational problems, encounter group drew on the ideas of the Human Potential Movement, and extended the group idea to broad population of 'normals' seeking personal growth.[2] Their name was derived by Carl Rogers from the existential tradition of an authentic encounter between people.[3]
Focus and legacy
editThe focus of the encounter group is on here-and-now interactions among the group members, and on their group experience;[4] and works by following the energy of the emerging issues in the group, and dramatising them in verbal or non-verbal ways.[5] An atmosphere of openness and honesty is encouraged throughout.[6] Authenticity and self-actualization are prominent goals.[7]
The heyday of the encounter groups was the Sixties and Seventies: thereafter nonverbal interaction was increasingly discouraged, and the legacy of the encounter group became a more modest emphasis upon process in the group.[8] Another, more fortuitous legacy was a new rigour in research methods of study of group work and its outcomes.[9]
Disadvantages
editReservations about the encounter group were early voiced by some of its practitioners like Carl Rogers, who was concerned about its potential for intrusive, bullying behaviour: he concluded that a solid ego was needed to profit from it in the first place.[10] Eric Berne similarly pointed to the danger of the group only providing a series of insights as insults, without any containment for negative reactions.[11]
Analysis of group encounter results revealed significant effects for both good and bad: where one/third of participants found some lasting benefit, 8% found lasting negative results.[12]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ William Schutz, Joy (Penguin 1973) p. 21 and p. 160
- ^ R. Gregory ed., The Oxford Companion to the Mind (Oxford 1987) p.221
- ^ I. Yalom, Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (2005) p. 530
- ^ I. Yalom, Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (2005) p. 526
- ^ J. Rowan, Ordinary Ecstasy (2013) p. 110-1
- ^ William Schutz, Joy (Penguin 1973) p. 21
- ^ R. Gregory ed., The Oxford Companion to the Mind (Oxford 1987) p.221
- ^ S. Mailick, Learning Theory in the Practice of Management Development (1998) p. 41
- ^ I. Yalom, Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (2005) p. 525-6
- ^ S. S. Fehr, Introduction to Group Therapies (2003) p. 24-5
- ^ E. Berne, A Layman's Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis (Penguin 1976) p. 296
- ^ I. Yalom, Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (2005) p. 536
Further Reading
edit- Carl Rogers, Carl Rogers on Encounter Groups (New York 1970)
External links
edit