article critique

RESEARCH

Experiences in Online Process Groups: A Qualitative Study

Kelly A. Kozlowski Courtney M. Holmes

Bowling Green State University

Online group counseling is an area scant with research, as much investigation has focused on the provision of online individual counseling services. During the course of an academic year, 12 master’s-level counseling students participated in 2 online (videoconferencing) process groups. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain insight into members’ experiences in online counseling groups. Several themes were identified, including the linear nature of the group, superficial engage- ment within the group, and feeling disconnected from one another. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Keywords: counselor training; online group counseling; technology; video- conferencing

The vast majority of what the field understands about group counsel- ing has been learned from groups that take place in face-to-face group environments. The current literature includes research that informs group counselors about the experiences of group members in face-to- face groups, such as the experience of interpersonal and intrapersonal processes in groups (Arnd-Caddigan, 2012; Corey, Corey, & Corey, 2014; Crane-Okada, 2012; Gladding, 2012; Krug, 2009). Currently, a gap exists in the literature concerning the experiences of members in online counseling groups. This qualitative study utilized phenomenological research methods to understand the essence of members’ experiences in online counseling groups.

The Best Practices Guidelines published by the Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW) state, “Group workers are aware of and responsive to technological changes as they affect society and

Manuscript submitted December 16, 2013; final revision accepted July 21, 2014. Kelly A. Kozlowski, Ph.D., and Courtney M. Holmes, Ph.D., are assistant professors in the Department of Mental Health and School Counseling at Bowling Green State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kelly A. Kozlowski, Department of Mental Health and School Counseling, Bowling Green State University, 451 Education Building, Bowling Green, OH 43402. E-mail: [email protected]

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK, Vol. 39 No. 4, December 2014, 276–300 DOI: 10.1080/01933922.2014.948235 © 2014 ASGW

276

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 277

the profession” (ASGW, 2007, p. 115, A.9). Several studies (King et al., 2009; Meier, Lyons, Frydman, Forlenza, & Rimer, 2007) investigated the efficacy and utility of using technology for group and family coun- seling, although the literature base is limited. Client perceptions of the use of online groups have been found to be generally positive due to the convenience of this environment (King et al., 2009). In addition, research has found that client outcomes in videoconferencing groups are comparable to face-to-face group outcomes (King et al., 2009). What is still unclear is whether group members in online environments expe- rience the curative nature of groups in a similar way as members of face-to-face counseling groups.

Online Counseling

Digital connections have become increasingly common in the field of counseling. The provision of digital services includes a variety of modalities including, but not limited to, information-based websites, interactive computer programs, asynchronous correspondence (e.g., email), synchronous chat (e.g., instant messaging), and videoconferenc- ing (Barak & Grohol, 2011). Many providers are offering these digital services as supplemental options for face-to-face services, or as stand- alone modalities (Menon & Rubin, 2011). Most often, these digital types of services are provided in an individual counseling format (Finn & Barak, 2010).

While online group therapy is not used as frequently as individ- ual online therapy (Bellafiore, Colon, & Rosenberg, 2003), particular modalities (audio or text based online counseling) are popular as a means to provide group services including online, mutual self-help groups, support groups, and online blogs. These services are most often interventions offered online by individuals who are untrained in coun- seling skills but are peers within the digital community. These services provide space for individuals to express themselves and for individuals to find help, peer support, ideas, and validation (Barak & Grohol, 2011; Meier et al., 2007). Additionally, research has suggested the effective- ness of online, text-based support groups for adults and teens (Meier et al., 2007; Webb, Burns, & Collin, 2008). However, some researchers have proposed that an unknown necessary component of therapeutic work is missing from online support/self-help groups and that these types of group modalities may not be thoroughly meeting the needs of those involved (Barak & Dolev-Cohen, 2006; Freeman, Barker, & Pistrang, 2008; Meier et al., 2007).

Online Group Counseling

Many types of groups exist for a myriad of different purposes. Psychoeduational groups focus on members’ cognitive, affective, and

278 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

behavioral skills through the use of structured, educational procedures. Counseling groups focus on interpersonal processes to help members resolve difficult problems of living, including career, educational, and personal concerns. Therapy groups address psychological problems of members with acute chronic mental or emotional problems that have lead to impairment in functioning. Another example is support groups, which consist of members with similar concerns who help each other examine personal issues and together find ways to cope more effec- tively with these issues. Support groups are not always lead by trained counselors.

Counseling groups are a foundational part of the mental health pro- fessions (Corey et al., 2014; Gladding, 2012). One way to offer online process groups is through videoconferencing (synchronous chat using video and audio). Studies point to the effectiveness of videoconfer- encing when treating individual clients dealing with issues such as anxiety and depression (Dunstan & Tooth, 2012), clients with psychosis (Sharp, Kobak, & Osman, 2011), and adolescents (Sefi & Hanley, 2012); however, little is known about using videoconferencing with groups.

Some research has been done into the efficacy of online support groups (Barak & Dolev-Cohen, 2006; Darcy & Dooley, 2007; Freeman et al., 2008; Haug, Strauss, Gallas, & Kordy, 2008; Lieberman et al., 2010; Webb et al., 2008; White & Dorman, 2001). Additionally, research has been done regarding specific outcome-based groups (Greene et al., 2010; King et al., 2009; Marziali, 2006). What have not yet been inves- tigated are the experiences of members in online groups, particularly online groups that require high levels of interpersonal connections. As such, it is unknown if an online modality can create an environment in which interpersonal relationships or therapeutic conditions can be established.

King et al. (2009) compared the outcomes of clients diagnosed with substance abuse disorders who participated in either face-to- face groups or videoconferencing intense substance abuse treatment groups. The results showed that 100% of respondents in the online group reported a strong preference for that type of group over face- to-face groups citing reasons such as social anxiety and lack of access to childcare impeding their ability to make face-to-face meetings (King et al., 2009). Additionally, no significant difference was found in effi- cacy of the treatment conditions showing that both types of groups were equally effective in supporting client change (King et al., 2009). Gilkey, Carey, and Wade (2009) studied a videoconferencing interven- tion for families with children with traumatic brain injury in which the therapist used videoconferencing to meet with the family once a week for several weeks. Even though the therapist was the only one using videoconferencing to meet with the family remotely, the results indicated mixed responses as to preference of the videoconferencing

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 279

option when compared with a face-to-face option. Nearly the same amount of adult caregivers, identified client children, and siblings identified preference for videoconferencing as those who identified pref- erence for face-to-face counseling. However, the majority of participants identified videoconferencing as either “very” or “extremely” helpful overall. Gilkey et al. (2009) noted many challenges to successful thera- peutic videoconferencing interventions including low levels of: (1) client knowledge and comfort with technology; (2) client readiness to address problems; and (3) personal flexibility to deal with imperfections of the videoconferencing modality and technology in general.

Curative Factors in Group and the Leader’s Role

Yalom, Tinklenbery, and Gilula (1968) describe several curative or therapeutic factors of group counseling including: universality, altru- ism, instillation of hope, cohesiveness, existential factors, interper- sonal learning, self-understanding, and catharsis. Additionally, client healing occurs as part of interpersonal and intrapersonal process of counseling groups (Arnd-Caddigan, 2012; Corey et al., 2014; Crane- Okada, 2012; Gladding, 2012; Krug, 2009). Finally, safety and trust are paramount to the success of counseling groups, as these characteristics are established, groups progress through several stages from forming to termination (Corey et al., 2014; Crane-Okada, 2012).

In a qualitative study about the experiences of master’s-level coun- selors who participated in a semester-long, face-to-face process group, Luke and Kiweewa (2010) found several important themes concern- ing the experiences within the group process including genuineness, authenticity, active participation, and safety. These themes were described as being important to the participants’ personal growth and awareness within the group. The curative factors and efficacy of tra- ditional, face-to-face group work is well documented (e.g., Corey et al., 2014; Dierick & Lietaer, 2008; Krug, 2009; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).

The ASGW Best Practices Guidelines offers suggestions and rec- ommendations to direct group counselors’ performance of group coun- seling (ASGW, 2007) as these guidelines state, “it is incumbent upon Group Workers to give considerable attention to the intent and context of their actions” (ASGW, 2007, p. 112). Additionally, the competencies state that group workers should possess a “basic knowledge of groups and the principles of group dynamics” (ASGW, 2007, p. 115) which includes managing the therapeutic conditions inherent within group counseling (ASGW, 2007, B.4). As the context of counseling shifts to incorporate technology, group workers’ should understand the chal- lenges and opportunities that videoconferencing and other online forms of group counseling present.

280 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

However, it is currently unknown if curative factors of face-to-face group counseling are transferable to counseling groups that are lead in a virtual, or online, environment and if online group counseling can produce qualities, processes, or environments that are similar to face-to-face groups. The complexity of synchronous counseling groups, including the ability of such group to create therapeutic conditions is fertile ground for continued research. In an effort to address this liter- ature gap, the current study investigated the experiences of members in online counseling process groups and asked the following research question: What was what is it like to experience group counseling in an online environment?

METHOD

The purpose of this study was to understand the shared experiences of members of online counseling groups. Based on Saltmarsh, Jenkins, and Fisher’s (1986) Task, Relating, Acquiring and Contacting (TRAC) model of group work which organizes the various types of groups based on the levels of processes and management, the authors chose to study contacting groups, specifically counseling groups based on the group’s need for high levels of counselor facilitation and process. The terms “process groups” and “counseling groups” will be used throughout this article to identify the nature of the studied group. Members understood the group would be a counseling group and their participation would require personal engagement with the process. Members also under- stood that each would set individual goals and take turns rotating into the leadership role. When members were leading they understood they were responsible for facilitating group safety, and monitoring interper- sonal and intrapersonal interactions. Participants were familiar with leading groups as well as with the concept of leadership rotation, as they had previously taken the semester-long Group Counseling course, which contained training in rotating leadership.

The authors utilized a constructivist theoretical framework to guide their research as “findings are literally created as the investigation pro- ceeds . . . and individual constructions can be elicited and refined only through interaction between and among investigator and respondent” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). Within the constructivist framework, the researchers used a transcendental phenomenological approach to qualitative research to capture a deeper level of understanding in which researchers come into contact with the lived experiences of par- ticipants. Through this approach researchers attempt to more deeply understand the essence of and complex ideas that surround such expe- riences (Bowen, 2008; Lichtman, 2013). The researchers, “sought to understand the individual and the collective experiences . . . and how

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 281

participants’ intentionally and consciously (thought) about their expe- rience” (Hays & Wood, 2011, p. 291). Additionally, phenomenological studies seek to develop training practices and policies around the studied experience (Creswell, 2013).

Participants

Upon approval from the Institutional Review Board, email invita- tions were sent to all 84 counseling students in a midsized, Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accredited, Midwestern University. The email invited any second-year master’s-level counseling student who had successfully completed the semester-long Group Counseling course to participate in an online group counseling study. The online group was advertised as a counseling group focused on personal growth wherein each member would set individual goals and utilize interpersonal and intrapersonal process to progress toward those goals. The principal investigators clearly stated that this group was not a training group and, instead, was promoted as a growth-oriented process group to be run like a clin- ical community group. Principal investors were available for questions and general supervision, if necessary, but the purpose of the group was not to train students in group work. In order to participate in the group, all volunteers had to have successfully completed the semester- long Group Counseling course, under the supervision of the principal investigator, and were currently enrolled in their Internship experi- ence. Because of these stipulations, all volunteers were considered appropriate for the online group. Twelve second-year counseling stu- dents volunteered to participate in the online groups. Group members received a $25.00 Visa gift card for participating.

At the initial meeting, all members considered themselves to be at least minimally comfortable with technology, social media, and virtual meetings. All members of the groups had taken the Group Counseling master’s-level course prior to participation in the study. This course occurred over 16 weeks in a standard CACREP counseling program and included: utilizing traditional group counseling skills to address both interpersonal and intrapersonal dynamics, facilitating counseling groups through the stages of group development, live supervision of group facilitation, and study of a group counseling text. Additionally, all participants had experience both leading and participating in face- to-face counseling groups as a requirement of the course. Therefore, all members were aware of leadership responsibilities, group counseling skills, and stages of groups. Additionally, all members were enrolled in their Internship courses in which they were running groups, while simultaneously participating in the study. None of the members had any specialized training in conducting online group counseling, nor

282 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

had they ever participated in online group counseling. Members in the leadership role were instructed to lead the online group in the same way that they lead face to face counseling groups. They were to uti- lize group counseling skills to build trust, link members, and monitor interpersonal and intrapersonal process.

Before beginning the online process, members expected a group experience similar to their face-to-face group experience in terms of forming connection with other members and working toward personal growth. In addition, members expected to be able to move through the group stages more quickly due to their prior relationships with one another. Members were not prepared in any way for the online group experience, except for training in how to navigate the online platform.

One counseling group included the following demographic makeup: (a) five females and one male; (b) five White and one Taiwanese/ inter- national student; and (c) age range 24–32. The second counseling group included the following demographic makeup: (a) five females and one male; (b) five White and one Latina; and (c) age range 23–54.

Online Groups

Two online counseling groups with six participants each met once a week for 6 weeks. The online counseling group was conducted using Google Hangout (http://www.google.com/hangouts/). Google Hangout, hosted through Google+, is a free video-chat service that hosts group chats with up to ten people at a time. All members of the chat group are simultaneously visible on other members’ devices (e.g., computer, tablet, phone) with the speaking person shown in an enlarged frame.

Prior to the start of the counseling groups, a training session about how to use Google Hangout was conducted. During this 1-hr training session, each participant created a Google Hangout account, practiced starting the virtual groups, and shared contact information including phone numbers and email addresses. This informational meeting was important in reducing anxiety and providing structure and direction for the participants. Participants then utilized an online scheduling tool (e.g., Doodle; www.doodle.com) to coordinate a consistent day and time of the week to conduct the six online group counseling sessions. Each week, one of the group members rotated into leadership allowing for each member to lead the online process group once during the 6 weeks.

Researchers

Four researchers conducted this qualitative study. All four were White females ranging in age from 22 to 43. None of the researchers

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 283

had any experience in conducting or participating in online group counseling. The two main researchers have experience conducting qualitative studies, have conducted studies regarding the use of tech- nology in counseling practices, and have taught group counseling courses. In addition, the two main researchers have both taught master’s-level group counseling courses, and have extensive experi- ence leading face-to-face groups. Both primary researchers teach a limited number of counseling courses in online environments and conduct research about the use of technology in counseling and edu- cational practices. Both researchers have positive views about the use of technology in the field of counseling. One main researcher has pub- lished research about individual counseling in an online environment. Concerns about possible bias due to favorable experiences using tech- nology in teaching and in past research studies were discussed at length prior to the start of the study.

Two additional researchers were accepted onto the project to help the principal investigators with the coding process. Before begin- ning this process, all researchers discussed potential bias toward the research topic. The additional researchers both stated that they felt unable to form opinions based on their small amount of knowledge regarding technology in the counseling field. They did share that they believed the idea was “cool” and “it seemed like it would work.” These researchers were new to qualitative research and untrained in group counseling which allowed them to express unbiased feelings on the use of technology in group counseling. In order to participate as co-researchers, they were trained in qualitative practices and were involved in the coding and writing process. One of the additional researchers had experience leading face-to-face groups, while the other had limited experience with group counseling.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness is a validity criteria utilized in qualitative research to address the credibility and internal validity of findings and is made up of six elements including: triangulation, member checks, prolonged engagement, peer reviews, audit trails, and addressing researcher bias (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Prior to the start of the study, the researchers met on several occasions to discuss suspending judgment, or epoché, to allow for authentic reflection. Both main researchers acknowledged bias toward positive experiences regarding online coun- seling and group work. These biases were based on positive experiences in online teaching experiences, favorable use of technology in teaching practices, and past research findings.

284 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

It is not possible to fully bracket personal judgments (Bowen, 2008; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Husserl, 1917/1981). With the researchers’ a priori bias that members would have a positive experience in online group counseling, it is possible that some of the strong language par- ticipants used to express disdain for the experience was tempered by the researchers. It is further possible that the authors misinterpreted deeper meanings. For example, members spoke adamantly about how online groups would be helpful in a psychoeducational format. The authors interpreted this as further confirmation of the lack of connec- tion needed to promote interpersonal work. The researchers believe they strictly adhered to all forms of trustworthiness when working with multiple constructed realities as defined by Lincoln and Guba (1985), including member checks, prolonged engagement, peer review, rich description, audit trails.

Once the study began, the data were collected over a period of 6 months, which allowed for prolonged engagement. Additionally, to guard against potential bias, the researchers continually referred back to the original data throughout the coding process and kept detailed audit trails and field notes. To safeguard against bias in the find- ings both of the main researchers were present during both focus groups. This allowed them to be mindful of biased, leading questions. During the focus groups the researchers remained alert for openings in responses to probe more deeply into the members experiences. In addition, the researchers questioned each other by bringing up known biases and preconceived notions throughout the data analysis process and referred back to the data throughout the interpretation and coding process. For example, if one researcher appeared more critical of the data, it was discussed and examined amongst all four researchers in order to lessen the potential for the misinterpretation of deeper partici- pant meanings. For example, the researchers identified when they may have been minimizing participant reactions or statements despite the obvious expressed passion about the negative experience. As another safeguard, the research participants reviewed the final invariant struc- ture for accuracy. Finally, prior to finalizing the results, the study was discussed with group counselors at two national conferences.

Procedure

After the 6-week online groups were completed, members of the groups voluntarily participated in one of two semi-structured focus groups. All six participants from the first online group experience par- ticipated in a focus group. Five of the six participants in the second online counseling group participated in the second focus group. Each participant was assigned a two-letter code for identification purposes

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 285

and to ensure anonymity in the transcript as well as to allow for an audit trail back to the original data.

The participants were asked a variety of questions about their expe- riences in online counseling groups (see Appendix A). The 2-hr focus groups were audio and videotaped. The audio recordings were tran- scribed verbatim. The transcriptions were 29 and 30 single-spaced pages, respectively. Additionally, the researchers collected various arti- facts to establish an in-depth understanding of the participant’s expe- rience. These artifacts included group plans, emails, dates and times of group meetings, and anecdotal information about technology-related issues encountered during the group sessions as well as unsolicited conversations.

Analysis

After the transcriptions were completed, the four researchers inde- pendently entered into the horizonalization process, or open-coded the data, by highlighting significant statements and meaning units, identifying words and sentences that provided an understanding of the experience of online group counseling. The open-coding process resulted in a total of 21 combined pages of coded data from all four researchers, with 421 highlighted words and statements from all four researchers. Some of the significant initial data included words such as: linear, less connected, distracted, lacked motivation, escape, frustration and filter. The main researchers were surprised by the findings from the initial opening coding process as the initial data appeared to con- tradict past research that found participants in online group counseling found the experience both helpful and enjoyable (King et al., 2009).

All four researchers continually met to discuss potential bias during this early coding phase. The secondary researchers lead the conversa- tion of the horizonalization process sharing their codings and initial experience with the data. They evaluated the meaning of what was selected as well as what was not selected during the open coding process. They considered deeper meanings such as frustrations and disappointment due to the linear experience of online groups. The researchers continued to evaluate any a priori judgments about the data.

Immediately following the initial open coding process the four researchers met to review the open-coded data and to combine the sig- nificant statements into clusters of meaning or themes. During this coding process, the four researchers identified clusters of meaning within the 21 pages of open-coded data. The clustering of the data, or axial coding process, produced ten pages of themes, which were continually modified throughout the process.

286 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

As the overall use of technology had an impact on all areas of the online group experience, the researchers were continually chal- lenged to distinguish clear themes when all the members’ discussions were focused on “blaming” technology. For example, technology and the online environment were blamed for most experiences ranging from not being able to have a normal conversation, to not being able to interpret nonverbal communication, to an excuse when participants did not want to attend a weekly group session. The researchers were challenged to distinguish member behaviors from environmental fac- tors that impacted the overall online group counseling experiences. When asked about experiences, participants complained about the interference of the environment on their participation within the group process.

In addition, the researchers focused on identifying both textual descriptions of what the participants experienced as well as structural descriptions about how participants experienced online group counsel- ing. The 10 pages of clustered meanings, or axial-coded notes, resulted in a final seven themes that captured the experiences of online group counseling: linear nature of the environment, hyper awareness of the environment, artificial feel to the environment, role confusion within the group, superficial engagement within the group, unsafe and mis- trusting of the group, and finally, disconnected from one another (see Appendix B). Some themes, such as linear and disconnected, were easy to identify, due to strong language and emotional statements expressed by all participants and easily agreed upon by all four researchers. Other themes were more difficult to identify and required much more discussion for all researchers to agree upon, such as the unsafe and artificial themes. The researchers were surprised members felt unsafe throughout the online group experience as prior research indicates the online environment has an insulating effect where members seem less inhibited and share more personal information earlier in relation- ships, which is also known as the disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004). In addition, the structural variation amongst participants had greater magnitude in this theme. Another confounding factor included the fact that members did not overtly state they were unsafe. The discussion was seemingly covert as members discussed their lack of work for and within the group, lack of movement through group stages, and worry about the trustworthiness of other members.

In the final stage of analysis the researchers integrated the seven themes into the final essential, invariant structure or the essences of the experience of online group counseling. The overall essence of the experience of participating in online group counseling is described in the findings below. After the conclusion of the data analysis, partici- pants from both the focus groups reviewed the findings for accuracy

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 287

in capturing their lived experiences. All participants agreed the find- ings captured their experiences in online group counseling and no unaccounted-for experiences were reported.

FINDINGS

Participants in this study experienced the online, videoconferenc- ing process group as being very different from face-to-face groups. The online group environment was described as being very linear with members waiting their turn to talk. The participants compared the nature of the experience as being similar to a student in a class- room. Participants stated that the lag time in the videoconferencing environment contributed to the linear nature of the group and the environment was anxiety provoking. In addition, the lag time led to awkward silences and hesitations during the group because members did not know how or want to interrupt other group members.

Members of the online group were also hyper-aware of the overt and covert nature of the online environment. They worked diligently to set up what other members saw in their homes and spent a great deal of time watching themselves on the monitors. Finally, being in their own homes created a very laidback, casual group interaction where mem- bers lacked the ability to read nonverbal communication and felt they were kept at a distance from each other both literally and figuratively. Ultimately, the online counseling experience was described as feeling artificial. Finally, members experienced the online group as an unsafe place to share personal stories, as they never felt they got to know one another or develop trust. Instead, members felt disconnected from one another, isolated, and unheard. Overall, the online groups were experienced as superficial with members disengaged from a desire to work. The seven themes that captured the essence of the online group counseling experiences are described below.

Linear Nature of the Environment

The one word used most often by participants to describe their expe- rience in the online environment was linear and it is evidenced in several ways. First, members waited to be called on to talk. In addi- tion participants also stated members “took turns,” and checked in one by one for each topic, and spoke directly to the member acting as the leader. One participant described the linear experience by stating, “there was no feedback in the group” (HR) and another explained the linear process by stating, “there was no cross talk” (MD).

Participants also noted that the time delay, or “lag time,” in online interactions lead to not knowing when it was appropriate to talk

288 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

without interrupting or having two people talking at one time (CA, MD, HR, RP, PH). Members did not want to be rude and noted that this led to “awkward silences.” Participants also noted that at times they wanted to respond but the other group member had stopped talk- ing moments prior and the opportunity passed rendering awkward silences. Lag time resulted in “not being able to talk about things in the moment” (PH). As a result, the member acting as the leader worked harder to get members to speak, while members waited to be called on to speak This theme is in alignment with the theme role con- fusion where the leader takes responsibility for each group member’s participation in the group.

Overall, the online environment severely limited the group’s circular and systemic interpersonal interactions. Lag time seemed to confound all participants’ ability to relax, and inhibited their impulse to share and respond. The resulting linear process appeared to impact members’ ability to meaningfully connect and interact. Not all participants found the linear nature to be a negative experience. Some appreciated the structure of knowing they would be called on to talk. One participant found it easier to participate because there was no need to decide when to talk.

Hyper-Awareness of the Environment

Members discussed being very aware that others in the group could see into their homes. Participants all laughed about how they inten- tionally “set the stage” so others saw what they wanted them to see. One participant mentioned, “I could even control what people saw. If this is what people are going to see I want my trophy here, I want people to know what I want people to know” (RP). Another stated, “I portrayed what I wanted to portray” (HR). Rather than see the abil- ity to share parts of their life and home with others in a meaningful way, members saw this as a way to “portray” their individuality in a controlled, simulated way, adding to the artificial feel of the group experience.

Additionally, the online environment allowed members to actually see themselves on the computer monitor. All participants stated how they watched themselves and spent a great deal of time continually monitoring how they looked online and, as one participant stated, “adjusting the screen because that’s too much of my face” (MD). Another participant clearly stated how, “I found myself looking at myself and I was telling myself to stop looking at myself—like ‘look at someone else because you wouldn’t do that if you were face to face with somebody’” (HR). This resulted in being distracted and therefore not truly engaging or listening to one another. Overall, the ability to

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 289

see themselves in the group was described as disconcerting and weird (RP, BT, MD, AG, CA).

In addition to being hyper-aware of their own behaviors, partici- pants were also constantly thinking about what other members were doing, which lead to suspicion and distrust. In addition, much concern was noted about confidentiality being breeched because other mem- bers could take screen shots or record sessions and post these to social media sites (RP, PH, JK, MD). One participant clearly summarized this by stating, “I know it is possible to do a screen shot if some- one is crying and make a funny picture out of it, stuff like that is a possibility” (RP).

Members questioned other members’ commitment and attention in the online environment, which was exacerbated by the lack of non- verbals and the linear interactions. This theme appeared to impact the theme of safety. The more unsafe the participant felt, the more hyper-aware he or she was of the environment. In addition, the more technology savvy the participant, the more he or she was leery of the other members’ actions. As a result, a great deal of internal attention was spent considering both their own and other members’ capability to manipulate the online environment which resulted in members not being emotionally present to work.

Artificial Feel to the Environment

The final structural theme identified by the researchers was an over- all feeling that the environment felt artificial, or not natural. Members could not communicate naturally, were not familiar with being together while still being in their own homes. While the researchers anticipated that the home environment for participants would create a comfortable space that promoted sharing and safety, the participants experienced the home environment as being too comfortable and fake. All partici- pants shared how being in their own home created a “laid back” (PH, AG, CA), or “casual” (HR, BT) atmosphere and how not being able to reach out and touch other members made it difficult or impossible to create a “warm” enough environment for people to open up (RL). Additionally, being in their homes meant there were numerous distrac- tions including televisions, immediate access to the Internet, and other people in the home. One participant stated “there (were) a whole lot of things going on around me like my cat was jumping up on my bed or sometimes I would forget to turn off the TV” (BT). Participants noted they did not really feel like they were present in a counseling group as compared to a face-to-face group experience.

Participants also mentioned how not being able to see nonverbal communication took away from their ability to communicate with one

290 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

another. Again, members compared their communication capabilities to a face-to-face group counseling experience. The result was unnatu- ral, artificial communication that neglected a key part of their ability to connect and interact. Additionally participants noted that the artifi- cial feel of the environment made reading emotions extremely difficult, if not impossible. Participants experienced the frustration early in the online group process and one participant stated, “You could not really see any nonverbals, so it was kind of hard to go off that, you had no idea if someone was really anxious or not” (HH). Another participant stated, “it was really frustrating because I was unable to communicate what I wanted to say to any of them” (BT). In addition what was said online, both content and meaning messages, did not always translate well online. One participant stated, “It ends up com- ing off harsher online versus face-to-face” (MD). After several group sessions the inability to perceive and understand nonverbal communi- cation became an accepted part of the group environment and members adjusted to the artificial feel.

Role Confusion Within the Group

Participants experienced their role, and ultimately their responsibil- ity, in the online environment as being confusing. Members of the group not only waited to be called on but they took on a student role, while the member acting as the leader took on a teacher role and worked hard to get members to participate. Participants compared the online group experience to being a student in a classroom. One member even stated, “After my turn was over I could relax and just sit there because it was someone else’s turn next” (BT). As a result of the role confu- sion they were not sure about how to engage in real work and the unspoken group norms became similar to classroom rules. Finally, all participants agreed that an online format might be a good fit for a teaching-focused group (e.g., psychoeducational). What varied in par- ticipant experiences was how much they liked the assumed student role, as some participants liked that they could just sit and not engage while others did not and became more frustrated with the student role.

Superficial Engagement Within the Group

Participants experienced their work in the online group as being superficial (AG, JK) or fake (PH, MD). One participant clearly stated, “It was like there was an unwritten rule or unspoken (rule), you know, that we were going to have a more friendly, chatty, easygoing, superficial group” (JK). Another participant stated, “I wanted to go

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 291

deeper, I tried but was shut down” (AG). Participants also noted that being resistant in face-to-face groups is different than the ability to hide or “be fake” in online groups (MD, JK, AG). One participant stated how, “Online it was easy to get away with not being real” (CH).

The degree to which members experienced a superficial environment appeared to change over time. Members discussed starting the group trying to share, but over time with little feedback and validation from other members the discussions became increasingly shallow. Members discussed initially wanting to take group work deeper but did not know how to manage a shift in discussion. They were confused about how to break the linear nature of the environment and felt cut-off from other members. In addition, they took on the role of student and waited to be “called on” to talk and share. All of these factors appeared to coalesce and impacted the superficial engagement of the participants.

Finally, what participants did not say about their experience in online group counseling is also important to acknowledge. Participants never alluded to engaging, processing, or even sharing experiences in the online group. Members never mentioned getting in touch with past feelings or emotions, or even experiencing emotions that were related to their goals. Rather, they nonchalantly described their experiences as talking about things they had done and merely talking about emotions. Of particular note is that members continually used the word “talk” to describe their participation in the group.

Disconnected From One Another

Researchers identified another theme as feeling disconnected from one another, both physically and emotionally. Members felt as though they never truly established relationships with one another. To fully describe their experiences, participants made comparisons between the experiences of genuine connections in face-to-face groups and the lack of connections experienced in the online counseling group. For example, one participant simply stated, “you lose that interpersonal connection” (HR), she later stated, “I felt distant from everyone.” Another partici- pant described the disconnected feeling between members by stating, “I felt like there was a wall or something between (us)” (MD). Participants used words such as “secluded” (RP), “isolated” (HR), and “un-validated” (MD, CH, BT) to describe their experience in online counseling groups. One participant stated, “I wanted someone to say they understood or had similar experiences but no one ever did” (MD), she later stated, “there was no feeling of support” (MD). Finally, the research partici- pants agreed that online groups would be not be suitable for groups that required members to actually feel supported or close to other members.

292 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

Unsafe and Mistrusting of the Group

Participants also described a lack of safety and trust in other mem- bers. Not trusting the technology seemed to compound not trusting each other and made establishing trust in the group difficult. Members’ sense of safety in the group appeared to be inversely proportional to their awareness of the capabilities of technology. The seemingly technology-savvy members were more mistrusting of how technology could be used to break confidentiality. In fact, confidentiality was some- thing that members grappled with in the online environment. This is closely tied to members being hyper-aware of the environment and other members’ ability to take screen shots and videos.

Several participants stated that they were aware the group was not progressing though the group stages and that overall the group felt as if it were stuck in the initial norming phase of development (MD, RP, BT). One participant clearly stated, “there was a little bit of progression but I think it was much, much slower like I don’t think we got through the group stages at all” (RP). Another participant stated it was not safe to be vulnerable (JK).

Additionally, members stated that because they could not see non- verbal cues and because there was a lack of group member interactions, they constantly wondered how others interpreted what they said. Participants stated they never really knew how others “took them” (RP, HR, MD). As one participant put it, “I need to know the person before I start revealing stuff so for me it would probably be harder for me to reveal that stuff in an online group because I don’t ever know them” (BT). Members appeared to use technology as a way to avoid working out issues of trust and safety within the group and never reached a place of personal vulnerability with other members. This appeared to have an impact on the superficial level of the overall group work.

A final piece of evidence that supports the experience of online groups not feeling safe is based on participants stating that online groups would not be good for any population that required safety and trust in a group. One participant stated, “if someone was being abused in their home I feel like online it would be really difficult for them to feel safe enough to talk to you” (RL).

DISCUSSION

This study set out to discover the experiences of participants in an online, videoconferencing group. Several concepts are known about online group counseling from previous literature including the positive perceptions of the group process, convenience of access, and positive clinical outcomes (King et al., 2009). The current findings examined

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 293

underlying components of the aforementioned studies by seeking to understand the lived experiences within the group. While some cur- rent findings correspond with previous research, several findings add additional perspective. For instance, online group counseling has been previously found to be convenient for group members. However, in the current study, this perceived convenience influenced the mem- bers’ engagement with the group process and connection with other group members. While convenience is a positive benefit (King et al., 2009), this could potentially lessen the development of therapeutic group engagement. Gilkey et al. (2009) found that comfort level with technology had an impact on client’s readiness to address issues in a videoconference environment. In the current study, the connection between group members did not seem to be strengthened for those par- ticipants who stated a high comfort level with technology prior to the group. Additionally, those who perceived themselves to be more tech- nologically savvy had a more difficult time trusting other members due to suspicion of potential manipulation of the online environment.

Significant findings were found related to understanding the ther- apeutic conditions and dynamics of group counseling. One important finding revolved around the environment. With regard to establish- ing a group environment conducive to meaningful work, Yalom and Leszcz (2005) stated, “If it is the group members who, in their interac- tion, set in motion the many therapeutic factors, then it is the group therapist’s task to create a culture maximally conductive to effec- tive to group interaction” (p. 92). The findings showed that an online environment impacts the members’ ability to establish a group environ- ment that includes effective interactions. Many of the characteristics of face-to-face counseling groups, such as the ability to read nonverbal communication, the ability to immediately comment on what is being shared, not being in the same room, and not truly facing other group members were replaced by a linear, laid back, casual group that felt iso- lating as members sat alone in their own homes. This may have lead to the confusion and frustration members felt about how to engage in meaningful work in online groups, as well as how to lead online groups.

Furthermore, when considering the need for the group leader to create an environment that fosters growth, Bellafiore et al. (2003) discussed the role of an online group leader as “shaping the group” and “setting the tone” (p. 211). Additionally he said, “Establishing and maintaining a leadership style is important in keeping the group going” (p. 211). Based on the findings from this study, online groups can have a linear feel where leaders are experienced as teachers and members feel like students. The authors believe additional training may need to address how to mitigate the linear nature of online group

294 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

counseling, how to work toward establishing safety in online groups, how to help members work through being hyper-aware of the envi- ronment, managing the lack of nonverbal communication, and helping members genuine connect to one another online.

Safety and trust are foundational components to promoting the cura- tive factors of group counseling (Corey et al., 2014; Crane-Okada, 2012; Dierick & Lietaer, 2008). Overall, members felt unsafe and untrusting within the online group process. Additionally, because of this lack of safety and nonexistent curative factors, the online group environment also limited the progression through group stages that would normally indicate movement toward meaningful work in effective counseling groups. The online environment appeared to interfere with group mem- bers’ ability to establish relationships and trust with other members and share meaningfully, therefore rendering them unable to progress into the working stage of the group process.

The members felt as though online groups were unable to support the development of the group counseling curative factors as defined by Yalom et al. (1968). For example, group participants did not mention having meaningful experiences with other members or experiencing any form of catharsis within the group process. Additionally, members felt isolated and unheard as opposed to feeling a sense of universality or validation with their struggles. Furthermore, the lack of interpersonal connection was not conducive to the curative factor of interpersonal learning. Finally, the data did not show that participants were able to achieve a sense of cohesiveness over the course of the 6-week process group.

Implications

Based on the findings of this study, caution is recommended when leading online counseling process groups. The Best Practice Guidelines state that group leaders should “foster therapeutic conditions and dynamics” (ASGW, 2007, p. 116, B.4), The online environment changes a myriad of components of the group process including how one fos- ters the therapeutic conditions and dynamics of the group experience. As such, practitioners and counselor educators need to know what can be done to ensure that online group counseling can foster meaningful online group experiences. These authors believe that in order to effec- tively lead online counseling groups, online-specific facilitation skills need to be taught to group leaders within training programs. Skills that address the technological components and differences in modality should start to be integrated into traditional training models as the notion of technology-specific counseling skills in counseling training programs has been supported by current online practitioners (Menon &

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 295

Rubin, 2011) as well as master’s-level counseling trainees (Haberstroh, Parr, Bradley, Morgan-Fleming, & Gee, 2008).

Online group leaders may want to consider the impact of confiden- tially in the online environment on group safety and dynamics. With the increased risks of breeches in confidentiality in the online envi- ronment, group leaders need to fully discuss these limitations with all members. Finally, according to the ASGW Multicultural and Social Justice Competencies, group workers should strive to plan groups to meet the needs of group members (ASGW, 2012, p. 4, II, 7–11). Online group counseling has the potential to reach underserved pop- ulations such as those with barriers to transportation, differences in personal mobility, those who do not want to be identified in public at a counselor’s office, those living in rural locations, and those generally reluctant to seek counseling (Layne & Hohenshil, 2005).

Strengths and Limitations

The current study is one of few studies that examine the perceptions of participants in a videoconferencing counseling process group. A sec- ond strength is that this study included two separate online groups and focus groups for data collection. The sets of codings from both focus groups contained similar and mutually validating themes show- ing that the two different groups had similar experiences. In addition, participants had both lead and participated in face-to-face groups and online groups, thus had the opportunity to compare all types of expe- riences. Finally, participants were trained in face-to-face counseling and understood the therapeutic elements of group counseling, which allowed them to discuss the changes they experienced in the modality shift.

One weakness is the transferability of the results. This study only includes twelve participants from one university, which limits the transferability of the experience. Additionally, the participants were master’s-level counseling students, which limits the transferability of findings to a clinical client base. Another limitation is the partici- pant demographic consisted mostly of educated, White females. Future studies should include more diverse participants in order to study the impact and utility of online groups on a wide variety of participants.

Future studies should further investigate the role that videocon- ferencing process groups can play in treating a clinical client base. Furthermore, studies should be conducted to investigate what special- ized skills and trainings are needed to lead online counseling groups. Finally, counselor education programs that offer unique training for leading online groups should study the efficacy of both the training and of services rendered.

296 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

CONCLUSION

The current study acknowledges inherent challenges to supporting productive and meaningful group counseling in an online environ- ment. By understanding these challenges, group leaders can develop strategies to work within the environment successfully so as to engage online counseling clients in the most meaningful ways possible. Results showed initial evidence that components of the group experience are lost in translation when groups are offered in a videoconferencing environment instead of a face-to-face environment. The experiences of participants in the online group seemed to lack aspects such as participant genuineness, authenticity, active participation, and safety, components found to be integral to meaningful group experiences, especially for master’s students (Luke & Kiweewa, 2010). Next steps should continue to investigate more about the online group process and how the field can begin to address the initial missing components. Practitioners and counselors educators need to know what can done in future clinical work to ensure that online group counseling can foster useful, therapeutic, and ethical experiences.

FUNDING

This project was supported by a grant from ASGW (Association for Specialists in Group Work).

REFERENCES

Arnd-Caddigan, M. (2012). The therapeutic alliance: Implications for therapeu- tic process and therapeutic goals. Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 77–85. doi:10.1007/s10879-011-9183-3

Association for Specialists in Group Work. (2007). Association for Specialists in Group Work: Best practice guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.asgw.org/pdf/Best_ Practices.pdf

Association for Specialists in Group Work. (2012). Multicultural and social justice com- petence principles for group workers. Retrieved from http://www.asgw.org/pdf/ASGW_ MC_SJ_Priniciples_Final_ASGW.pdf

Barak, A., & Dolev-Cohen, M. (2006). Does activity level in online support groups for distressed adolescents determine emotional relief. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 6, 186–190.

Barak, A., & Grohol, J. M., (2011). Current and future trends in internet-supported mental health interventions. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29, 155–196.

Bellafiore, D. R., Colon, Y., & Rosenberg, P. (2003). Online counseling groups. In R. Kraus, J. Zack, & G. Stricker (Eds.), Online counseling: A handbook for mental health professionals (pp. 197–216). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Bowen, G. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8, 137–152.

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 297

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Sage.

Corey, M., Corey, G., & Corey, C. (2014). Groups: Process and practice. Belmont, CA: Cenage Learning.

Crane-Okada, R. (2012). The concept of presence in group psychotherapy: An operational definition. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 48, 156–164. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6163.2011.00320.x

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darcy, A., & Dooley, B. (2007). Profile of participants in support groups. European Eating Disorders Review, 15,185–195.

Dierick, P., & Lietaer, G. (2008). Client perception of therapeutic factors in group psychotherapy and growth groups: An empirically based hierarchical model. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 58, 203–230.

Dunstan, D. A., & Tooth, S. M. (2012). Treatment via videoconferencing: A pilot study of delivery by clinical psychology trainees. The Australia Journal of Rural Health, 20, 88–94.

Finn, J., & Barak, A. (2010). A descriptive study of e-counsellor attitudes, ethics, and practice. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10, 268–277.

Freeman, E., Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2008). Outcome of an online mutual support group for college students with psychological problems. CyberPyschology & Behavior, 11, 591–593.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Gilkey, S. L., Carey, J., & Wade, S. L. (2009). Families in crisis: Considerations for the use of web-based treatment models in family therapy. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 90, 37–45.

Gladding, S. (2012). Groups: A counseling specialty (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Greene, C., Morland, L., Macdonald, A., Frueh, B., Grubbs, K., & Rosen, C. (2010). How does tele-mental health affect group therapy process? Secondary analysis of a noninferiority trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 746–750.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K., Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 105–117). London, England: Sage.

Haberstroh, S., Parr, G., Bradley, L., Morgan-Fleming, B., & Gee, R. (2008). Facilitating online counseling: Perspectives from counselors in training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 460–470.

Haug, S., Strauss, B., Gallas, C., & Kordy, H. (2008). New prospects for process research in group therapy: Text-based process variables in psychotherapeutic Internet chat groups. Psychotherapy Research, 18, 88–96.

Hays, D., & Wood, C. (2011). Infusing qualitative traditions in counseling research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 11, 288–295.

Husserl, E. (1981). Pure phenomenology, its methods and its field of investigation (R. W. Jordan, Trans.). In P. McCormick & F. Elliston, Husserl: Shorter works (pp. 342–348). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published in 1917)

King, V. L., Stoller, K. B., Kidorf, M., Kindbom, K., Hursch, S., Brady, T., & Brooner, R. (2009). Assessing the effectiveness of an Internet-based videoconferencing platform for delivering intensified substance abuse counseling. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36, 331–338.

Krug, O. T. (2009). James Bugental and Irvin Yalom: Two masters of existential therapy cultivate presence in the therapeutic encounter. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 49, 329–354. doi:10.1177/0022167809334001

298 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

Layne, C. M., & Hohenshil, T. H. (2005). High tech counseling: Revisited. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 222–226.

Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A users guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lieberman, M., Winzelberg, A., Golant, M., Wakahiro, M., DiMinno, M., Aminoff, M., & Chadwick, C. (2010). Online support groups for Parkinson’s patients: A pilot study of effectiveness. Social Work Health Care, 42, 23–38.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Luke, M., & Kiweewa, J. M., (2010). Personal growth and awareness of counseling

trainees in an experiential group. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 35, 365–388.

Marziali, E. (2006). Developing evidence for an Internet-based psychotherapeutic group intervention. Information Technology and Evidence-Based Social Work Practice, 3, 149–165.

Meier, A., Lyons, E. J., Frydman, G., Forlenza, M., & Rimer, B. K. (2007). How cancer survivors provide support on cancer-related Internet mailing lists. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9, 1–22.

Menon, G. M., & Rubin, M. (2011). A survey of online practitioners: Implications for education and practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29, 133–141.

Saltmarsh, R., Jenkins, S., Fisher, G. (1986). The TRAC model: A practical map for group process and management. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 11, 11–32.

Sefi, A., & Hanley, T. (2012). Examining the complexities of measuring effectiveness of online counselling for young people using routine evaluation data. Pastoral Care in Education, 30, 49–64.

Sharp, I., Kobak, K., & Osman, D. A. (2011). The use of videoconferencing with patients with psychosis: A review of the literature. Annals of General Psychiatry, 10, 1–11.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–679. Webb, M., Burns, J., & Collin, P. (2008). Providing online support for young people with

mental health difficulties: Challenges and opportunities explored. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 2, 108–113.

White, M., & Dorman, S. (2001). Receiving social support online: Implications for health education. Health Education Research, 16, 693–707.

Yalom, I. D., &, Leszcz. M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Yalom, I. D., Tinklenbery, J., & Gilula, M. (1968). Curative factors in group ther- apy(Unpublished study). Cited in I. D. Yalom (1995), The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed., pp.72–79). New York, NY: Basic Books.

APPENDIX A FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

What was your experience as a member within the online group?

What part did technology play in your ability to fully participate as a member in online groups?

What insights did you gain about participating in an online group through this experience?

Kozlowski and Holmes/ONLINE PROCESS GROUPS 299

As a member how would you describe the group dynamics of the online group?

Overall did using technology (online group meetings) seem add to or take away from your experience? Explain this if you have not already.

How does participating in online groups compare to leading groups face to face?

How might clients feel if they were to seek therapeutic treatment through this modality?

What surprised you during this experience either as a member or leader?

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF THEMES

Theme Descriptions of the Experience Sample Quotes

Linear Nature of the Environment

Members described taking turns, significant lag time, and not wanting to interrupt another member’s turn

“I’ll wait for the leader to call on me and then I’ll say my piece” (MD).

Hyper- Awareness of the Environment

Members described setting the stage, saw themselves on the screen. Members closely monitored what they said and how they looked. They were aware of other members behaviors and worked to control the environment

“I found myself looking at myself” (HR). “I want my trophy here I want people to know what I want people to know” (RP).

Artificial Feel to the Environment

Overall, the environment felt unnatural. Being at home created a laid back, casual atmosphere. Members were easily distracted,. The lack of nonverbal communication added to the awkward, unnatural feel of the environment.

All participants shared about how being in their own home created a “laid back” (PH, AG, CA), or “casual” (HR, BT) atmosphere. “You had no idea if someone was really anxious or not” (HH).

(Continued)

300 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/December 2014

Theme Descriptions of the Experience Sample Quotes

Role Confusion within the Group

Members felt the interactions were similar to that of a teacher and a student. Members were confused about how to shift these interactions and felt they lacked an understanding of the skills needed to change the roles they inadvertently assumed.

All participants agreed that an online format might be a good fit for groups call for a teaching focus.

Superficial Engagement within the Group

Members strongly avoided working and spent their time “talking” to each other. They hid their true selves because there was no feeling of accountability or experience being challenged.

“Online it was easy to get away with not being real” (CH).

Unsafe and Mistrusting of the Group

Members did not feel they established trust and reported they did not move through the stages of group development. Members feared being judged or exposed.

“It was not safe to be vulnerable” (JK).

Disconnected from One Another

Members’ felt they did not establish relationships and lacked interpersonal connections. Members did not feel validated or heard which left them feeling isolated.

“I felt like there was a wall or something between (us)” (MD).

Copyright of Journal for Specialists in Group Work is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.