SUMMARY. For almost two decades, leaders in the field of social group work have been warning that the foundational principles and prac- tice of group work as a modality are in danger of being absorbed into generalist social work practice. This paper expands upon the appeal of leaders in the social group work field to generate an environment in which group work is recognized as an integral method in social work practice and education. This paper examines group work as a powerful methodology in social work practice with a specific theoretical frame- work and skill base that is fundamental to the social work profession. The characteristics of group work’s strengths are explored with a com- prehensive overview that inspires renewed commitment to preserving, practicing and promoting social group work as a viable and integral part of social work practice. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Social group work, mutual aid, stage management, so- cial work curricula, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

INTRODUCTION

For the past fifteen years Kurland and Salmon (1992, 1996, 2002, 2004) along with Middleman (1990) have been warning practitioners

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “The Essential Power of Group Work.” Drumm, Kris. Co-published simultaneously in Social Work with Groups (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 29, No. 2/3, 2006, pp. 17-31; and: Making Joyful Noise: The Art, Science, and Soul of Group Work (ed: Andrew Malekoff, Robert Salmon, and Dominique Moyse Steinberg) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2006, pp. 17-31. Single or multiple copies of this arti- cle are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].

doi:10.1300/J009v29n02_02 17

that social group work theory, principles and practice are in danger of being absorbed and dispersed into the greater social work field as gener- alist practice becomes the current predominant approach to services and to social work education. In three separate addresses to the Annual Symposium of the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups (AASWG), Kurland and Salmon (1992, 2002, 2004) ap- pealed to social group workers to strategize to create an environment in which group work is honored in its right as an integral method in social work practice and education. Middleman (1990, p. 30) made a call for action fifteen years ago, beseeching group workers to go forth and “be noisy” articulating our understanding of the values and knowledge of group work. Kurland and Salmon call for a “Joyful Noise” about group work (1992, 1996).

This paper seeks to be loud and clear about the reasons group work is a powerful method with a specific theoretical framework and skill base that is fundamental to the social work profession. The components of group work’s strengths are presented with the intention of providing practitioners and agencies with a comprehensive overview that inspires renewed commitment to preserving, practicing and promoting social group work in its undiluted entirety.

THE DECLINE OF SOCIAL GROUP WORK EDUCATION AND PRACTICE

There is an abundance of literature on the principles and efficacy of social work with groups (Cohen, 1995; Dies, 1995; Garvin, 2001; Getzel, 2003; Gitterman, 2003; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman and Wood, 1990; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1999). Never- theless, there is a continuing omission of comprehensive group work curricula (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Steinberg, 2002).

The decline of social work education in group work began in 1969 when the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) decided to integrate case- work, community organizing, and group work into one generalist method (Kurland and Salmon, 2002; Magen, 1998). The percentage of social work graduate programs that had concentrations in the group work method went from 76% in 1963 to 22% in 1981, and in a 1992 survey of graduate schools of social work, the percentage had dropped to an alarming seven percent (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1992). The continuous diminishing of group work’s importance as a specialized modality in foundational curric-

18 MAKING JOYFUL NOISE: THE ART, SCIENCE, AND SOUL OF GROUP WORK

ula relegates the methodology to a status that appears to be regarded as pe- ripheral to social work practice.

The decrease in social group work visibility and presence in social work curricula may have led to fewer social workers who view group work as an effective response to client needs (Cohen, 1995). As a result, group work is frequently marginalized as non-essential and less serious and substantive than casework (Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Cohen, 1995). The marginalization of social group work within the social work profession may indicate a fundamental flaw in the perception and per- spective on where social group work exists in relation to casework, community organizing and administration.

Social group work challenges the dominant political sensibilities of individualism, competition, dualism, and authoritarianism. The exclu- sion of social group work curricula and the dilution and distortions of group work theory and practice may be reflecting the current political climate, policy, and national events, all of which impact social work (Middleman, 1990).

Social workers who are group workers struggle with agencies to le- gitimize and include social group work as a crucial method of practice. This struggle for legitimacy parallels the struggles that many of our dis- enfranchised clients face. Ironically it also parallels the struggle that the social work field has faced since the early nineteen hundreds when Flexner (1915) publicly posed the question whether social work was a profession.

PRINCIPLE POWER

At the 2005 Annual Symposium of the Association for the Advance- ment of Social Work with Groups (AASWG), Dominique Moyse Steinberg eloquently referred to the “magic” of group work in her trib- ute to the legacy of Roselle Kurland. The magic she is referring to is the power that is created by skillful practitioners who adhere to the basic precepts of social work with groups. Social group work principles, the- ory, and skill bases formulate a powerful potion for spelling and dispel- ling the forces that obstruct the growth and freedom of the people we work with, our agencies and ourselves.

These elements of social group work are remarkably effective when combined and practiced in the cauldron of the contemporary social work milieu. The resulting “brew” benefits and enhances not only the individual participants’ social functionality but the agency’s functional-

Kris Drumm 19

ity as well. Conscientiously practiced social group work improves all of the systems it is practiced in and the synergy of the systems as well.

Group work requires workers to bring the underlying and hidden is- sues and feelings to the surface in a public way (Shulman, 1998). Mid- dleman (1990, p. 24) states, “it takes guts to work with individuals while others watch what you do.” Breaking taboos such as talking about sexu- ality or abuse in front of others deviates from societal norms. The ex- posed nature of social work groups’ reciprocal exchange is outside the boundaries of our individualistic and dualistic conditioning. The ability to shatter false dichotomies is a skill of the adept group worker who fa- cilitates a process that bursts the bounds of teacher-student, doctor-pa- tient, parent-child power dyads (Shulman and Gitterman, 2003).

Social group work has been characterized as being in the swamp, or the muck, or the mess (Schon, 1987) because it embraces the get down and dirty of relating and struggling with problems in meaningful ways (Kurland and Salmon, 1992). Truth and conflicts are brought to the sur- face and participants are guided to examine and grapple with all of the positions and options involved.

Practitioners are required to be able to be vulnerable and flexible and able to take and give up control in ways that benefit both the group and its individuals. The worker deals with confrontation in front of wit- nesses. The presence of witnesses carries a power in a culture where conflict is interpreted, convoluted, denied or smoothed over, mostly be- hind closed doors by the formal power holders.

When the group is worked by a practitioner with a grasp of the principles, the work of the group attains dimensions it cannot have otherwise (Kurland and Salmon, 2002). Purposeful application of group work skills and theory enables groups to move beyond the illu- sion of work where groups led by non-skilled facilitators often stall (Shulman, 1999). Effectual group workers make a “demand for work” (Schwartz, 1971, p. 11) and clients are guided to wholeheartedly work on the issues they came to work on with forthrightness and clarity.

Some of the factors that make a group a social work group are the awareness and employment of the following principles:

• Inclusion and respect. Groups validate every person’s voice and honor each participant’s view by exemplifying faith and belief in each individual’s capability of constructive contributions (Kurland and Salmon, 2002; Dies, 1995).

• Mutual aid. Mutual aid involves fostering people’s ability to con- ceptualize and to articulate their own needs, and to recognize and

20 MAKING JOYFUL NOISE: THE ART, SCIENCE, AND SOUL OF GROUP WORK

respond to other group member’s needs. The principle of mutual aid has been alluded to as the most important concept of group work (Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1999; Steinberg, 2002). Mutual aid creates the conditions in which people can sup- port and assist one another with their personal goals. Being able to recognize and empathize with others, to listen to others and ex- press one’s self, and see the commonalities with other group mem- bers empowers participants to interact more effectively in their varied social arenas (Schwartz, 1973; Shulman, 1999).

• Stage Management. Effective social group workers recognize and make use of the various stages of group development, and use the products and by products of energy generated by the interactions of the group in beginnings, middles, and ends. Studies show that group development can traverse these stages in a cyclical manner, and that timing interventions to stage development is important (Garvin, 2001; Shulman, 1999).

• Use of Conflict. Facing and exploring conflict is core to the exper- tise and effectiveness of group work (Bernstein, 1973; Northen and Kurland 2001). This can involve “tuning in” (Schwartz, 1971), or understanding euphemisms and codes that group mem- bers use, and helping members see contradictions, commonalities and differences.

• Conscious development, use, and implications of purpose. Skilled facilitators regularly bring members’ awareness to defining and developing the group’s changing purpose (Kurland and Salmon, 1997). Consistent agreement and crystallization of purpose adds to group cohesion and the group sense of self determination.

• Breaking taboos. Group work practitioners develop the ability to say the things people have the hardest time saying, and naming the “pink elephants” in the room. At times the things that some indi- viduals regard as shameful, deviant, or abnormal are normalized by the practitioner’s ability to break taboos (Shulman, 1999).

• Value of activity. Social learning theories have taught us that there are major differences in learning styles. Use of art, music, writing, playing, and acting are invaluable in reaching varied populations, meeting people where they are at, and using clients’ strengths (Wright,1999; Northen and Kurland, 2001).

• Problem-solving. Practitioners regularly are called upon to guide the group through decision-making and problem-solving pro- cesses. A mistake commonly made by the non-educated group worker is to leap to resolution and solution of the presenting issue

Kris Drumm 21

without benefiting group members with a proper exploration of the issue (Kurland and Salmon, 1999; Northen and Kurland, 2001), or framework to use in the future. Kurland and Salmon (1999) pre- sent a five-step process based on the work of John Dewey.

FORCES AT WORK

There are many factors that distinguish social group work from other groups. Social work groups are complex systems with multi-di- mensional tasks. Group members assume different roles that generate varied interfacing and interactions. The effectual group creates norms and develops its own culture. An important tenet of social group work is that the group itself is an entity with its own lifecycle. Therefore the social group worker attends to each individual in the group as well as the group as a whole. There are dynamics, patterns, and stages evolv- ing thru the life of a group, be it fifteen minutes, or fifteen months (Northen, 1987; Shulman, 1999; Garvin, 2001). Social workers’ awareness of how people behave during each of those stages can greatly benefit any group. People are put at ease during beginnings, and encouraged to air conflict and explore issues to resolve problems during the middle stage by knowledgeable group work practitioners. Group workers learn to contextualize and point out contradictions, make connections, and illuminate bonds and differences advanta- geously.

A group worker can be working the group and creating the magic of groups without having a recognized leadership role. Staff meetings and meetings in general can become more effective groups as a result of a group worker being present using their skills (Rubin, 2002).

Dies (1995) found empirical evidence documenting the value of group work for clients suffering from alcoholism, sexual dysfunction, depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, and bereavement. Other popula- tions that group work is used with include battered women, children, rape victims, victims of mass violence, people living with diseases, old people, and prisoners (Northen, 1987; Northen and Kurland, 2001). Types of groups that are utilized by social work practitioners include closed membership short or long-term groups, open short-term or long-term groups, support groups, psycho-therapy and activity groups.

22 MAKING JOYFUL NOISE: THE ART, SCIENCE, AND SOUL OF GROUP WORK

EFFICACY

In a review of the literature addressing the effectiveness of group work, the pragmatic benefits mentioned included affordability to clients and staff efficiency (Dies, 1995; O’Conner, 2002). Dies (1995) cautions practitioners that the potential effects of group work may be watered down when agencies have waiting lists for individual services and offer groups as a second best alternative He further posits that the client’s view of the treatment may impact its effectiveness and how agencies present the modality makes a difference. The likelihood of a group’s success within an agency is compromised when the agency regards groups as non-essential. Unfortunately, agencies often cut groups first during uncertain financial times (Getzel, Kurland, and Salmon, 1986), sending a message that groups are adjunct to the work of the agency.

Groups foster an understanding that one is not alone in their suffering by universalizing the issues members face (Shaffer and Galinsky, 1989; Northen, 1987). Theorists recognize that the mutual sense of identifica- tion group members receive in groups fosters a sense of belonging (Northen, 1987; Shulman, 1999). Belonging and relating to a peer group reduces anxiety, increases self-expression and willingness to try new ideas (Northen, 1976; Shulman, 1999). Northen (1987) attributes an improvement in members’ self-esteem to when they see that others who have the same problem are likeable.

A frequently mentioned benefit of mutual aid is the sense of altruism gained from helping others (Kaul and Badner, 1978; Steinberg, 2004). This includes the skills and abilities that group participants acquire to listen and understand others. Members learn to express helpful feed- back, give support, share time responsibly, and explore differences and commonalities (Dies, 1995). Shaffer and Galinsky (1989) remark on the gains made when members can work through their relationships in the context of treatment, instead of just talking about them.

A reduction of problems is attributed to the validation members re- ceive in groups as well as their opportunity to ventilate (Northen, 1987; Shulman, 1999). Theorists often allude to the fostering of hope that oc- curs in groups when members observe each other’s progress, and the worker encourages members to share their coping strategies (Northen, 1992; Garvin, 1997). Members learn problem solving skills through employment of a consistent formula, and the successful resolution of conflict empowers them to deal with subsequent similar challenges (Bernstein, 1973; Northen and Kurland 2001).

Kris Drumm 23

Group work is empowering in its avoidance of patient-therapist de- pendency (Shaffer and Galinsky, 1989). The required power sharing that the worker must do in creating mutual aid groups strengthens the participant’s sense of self-determination (Middleman, 1990; Gitterman and Shulman, 1994). A sense of ownership and investment in the group empowers participants.

THE CENTRALITY OF GROUP WORK IN SOCIAL WORK

Empowerment and strengths-based principles of the social work pro- fession are fundamental in a perspective which conceptualizes the cli- ent’s involvement as co-creators with the social worker (Falck, 1983). Empowerment is also conveyed by the message group work gives; that each individual has something constructive to contribute (Kurland and Salmon, 1996; Dies, 1995).

Schwartz (1971) defines social works’ function as mediating the “. . . process thru which the individual and his society reach out to each other thru a mutual need for self-fulfillment.” The overall goal for group par- ticipants is to become more effective in their lives within groups and systems to which they belong (Dies, 1995). These objectives place group work as foundational to the social work paradigm.

The work of social group work theorists and educators demonstrate why group work is an integral component of social work methodology. Social work with groups can be seen as an important step in a natural progression of social work services. This progression proceeds from casework to activism in the following manner:

Casework–Counseling–Group Work–Activism (Community Organizing)

Using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1966) as a lens to conceptual- ize social work and its modalities, the mutual aid system of group work is an ideal medium in which to satisfy individuals’ social needs for af- fection, belonging, acceptance, self-esteem, and actualization (Figure 1).

The idea of successful group work leading to action is not new. Greenfield and Rothman (1987) give several examples of groups that decided to stay together and become social networks for each other as well as political action groups. They suggest that “transformation” be added to the stages model of group, postulating that a defining a new

24 MAKING JOYFUL NOISE: THE ART, SCIENCE, AND SOUL OF GROUP WORK

purpose is highly plausible in a group that has experienced high cohe- sion, identification and strength (Greenfield and Rothman, 1987). In their view, the group itself progresses through Maslow’s paradigm, and finds its self ready to act.

THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION

Part of the power of group work is in the reflection that occurs be- tween each member of the group with each other and the group as a whole. The dynamic interchanges between each and all call forth the noticing of commonalities and differences, and a seeing of one’s self in relationship. This multi-faceted mirror of perception between the indi- vidual and the group can create a powerful arena for creating self- awareness.

Kris Drumm 25

FIGURE 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Maslow’s Hierarchy Needs Service Method

Physical:

Physiological

Safety

Protection

Social:

Affection

Belonging

Acceptance

Esteem:

Self respect

Autonomy

Self actualization: Doing

Putting ideas into action

Food, housing, health care, legal intervention, crisis intervention, needs assessment (clinical, mental health, GAF*)

Referral and informationt Access to resources Casework Advocacy Counseling Screening

Casework Case management Counseling, Small group work Planning

Validation, support

Feelings of belonging, acceptance, membership

Feelings of hope, love, connectedness

Resources, energy, connections,

Friends, associates, social groups being with others

Getting support from peers as well as the agency

Breaking isolation

Organizational involvement

Political participation

Group Work (closed membership support groups, encourage intimate sharing and exploration, mutual aid); and/or open group work

Activity groups

Activity groups, community organizing macro groups, local, national, global

Praxis (reflection plus action)

*GAF: Global Assessment of Functioning

This portrayal of an individual’s opportunity to view themselves in rela- tion to other group members and the workers is replicated with each participant.

CASE EXAMPLE

The following case example illustrates the reflective process in a support group of lesbians between the ages of seventy and eighty-five. They have been meeting for two months and are struggling with issues of intimacy Wanting more meaningful friendships has been identified as an issue they want to struggle with. The group is an open one, meaning the membership configuration changes often, and new members may come and go.

At the group meeting prior, members shared memories of early rejec- tion. Sheila, who is 74 years old, and a regular group member, has talked before in the group about feeling lonely. “I have to force myself to get up in the morning, because there is nothing for me to do,” she has said to the group more than once. In this case example, Sheila initiates a continuation of last week’s discussion:

“I have been thinking a lot about rejection since the group last week. I remembered having two girlfriends when I was a child, and we always played together. One day I discovered them playing jacks without me, and having a good time. I never knew they

26 MAKING JOYFUL NOISE: THE ART, SCIENCE, AND SOUL OF GROUP WORK

Group worker

Group member

played without me. I felt so bad. I feel like people only want to be friends with me to a point. I think I am not creative or intellectual enough, I don’t know, like something is missing. I know, I know, my self-esteem is horrible.” Patricia replied by telling Sheila that now she understood better why Sheila hasn’t responded to Patri- cia’s efforts to reach out. “I thought you did not like me,” Patricia said, “Now I get that it is your insecurity.” Sheila was surprised. “Really? You really were trying to reach out to me?” When Patri- cia assured her she was, Sheila replied, “Well try again!” Jewelle, who has known Sheila for more than twenty years looks at Sheila with disbelief. “I can’t believe what I am hearing! You are so bright and confident. I never would think you had a self-esteem problem!” At this point the worker pulls the rest of the group in by summarizing and reaching for full participation (Middleman (1990). “That is a great example of a misperception of how people see us! Has anyone else ever been misperceived, or think they misperceived someone, or some thing?” Jane answered. “I never know what people are thinking about me. I was never wanted as a child, I was told that a lot. I never talked about myself and I stifled my artistic expression, because I felt so bad about myself.” The mutual aid process engages here, and Tania, a very brusque woman, who claims she does not want any friendships, tells Jane, “Now you can change that. You can let your creative self out now! You have us, you know.” Patricia relates to Jane as well. “You know Jane, my mother hated me, too. I think I know what you went through. I hated myself for so long. I had to learn the mantra ‘I am good, I am good, I am good,’ and I still have to do that some- times.” Jane said, “I am glad I came today. I am glad someone un- derstands.”

Building on Patricia’s offering, the worker asks the group if there were other things that group members do that help negative self-perceptions. Sheila remarked that talking about it helped her put it in perspective, but that, “It was a lot easier to tell stories like that when we were younger.” Jane agreed. “I think we keep the painful stuff in, and the more time goes by, the more we keep things in, until we hardly speak at all anymore.” At this point, Rita, who has said nothing until now, tells about a childhood of severe and prolonged abuse, and then an abusive sexual relationship. “Now I watch people a long time before I get close to them. I want to see how they treat others first. I never talk about this stuff, you

Kris Drumm 27

are right, Jane. We keep it stuffed.” The worker commended the insight and the risk taking of the group members and asked Jane if there was anything more she wanted to share with the group. Jane said there wasn’t, and then goes on to say, “But I am very de- pressed you know. My mother always told me she wished she aborted me. She was very mean.” At this revelation, Tania ex- plodes, “Your mother was a bitch! She had no right to be so fucking mean to you!” Jane smiled for the first time in weeks and said, “No she didn’t, did she?”

In this short example of a group interaction, the mutual aid process is evident in the support and validation members are giving each other. Group members reflect their impressions and observations as well as their own related experiences to their peers. Sheila received input on how she is seen by others, Tania breaks through her detachment to sup- port Jane, and Patricia and Rita share painful experiences that have cre- ated obstacles to intimacy in their lives. The fullness of the empathetic understanding these women experienced in this group could not be matched in individual sessions.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary society’s social workers face a vast array of chal- lenges posed by the marginalization, isolation, deprivation, and ste- reotyping of the populations we work with. Social group work methodology and its principles exert extraordinary effectiveness in contradicting feelings of powerlessness and internalized self-hatred, and improving social functioning. It is alarming that this valuable so- cial work method faces the danger of being diffused and robbed of its potency, of its magic when we need it most.

Group work is grounded in a substantial theoretical framework that has been established over the course of the last century. It is the embodi- ment of social work ethics and principles in action. The fact that the the- ory and skill base of methodology is in danger of becoming extinct in practice and social work education should create an outrage among all social work professionals. CSWE and NASW must be held accountable and pressured to ensure adequate group work theory and methodology is included in social work curricula.

Educational resources for those who wish to specialize in group work need to be established within schools of social work. The needs of peo- ple who are facilitating groups without education and training must be

28 MAKING JOYFUL NOISE: THE ART, SCIENCE, AND SOUL OF GROUP WORK

considered. Continuing education courses in group work are needed for para-professionals as well as for Masters of Social Work who did not re- ceive adequate instruction. San Diego State University, in conjunction with AASWG (2003) has created a model of this type of training.

It is apparent that groups have generative power when one considers the multi-dimensional, multiplying potentiality of social group work. This paper only touched upon the most basic reasons for group work to be used for individual change work. There is an equally compelling case for the role of group work in social change that has been made by lead- ing educators and practitioners in the field (Gitterman, 2003; Getzel, 2003; Henry, 2003). When viewing the possibilities, the imagination can conceive of an exponential capacity for global understanding and change through the medium of social work groups.

There is an alarming trend in the devolution of group work as an ef- fective and viable modality in the field of social work as evidenced by its invisibility in most of the social work foundational curricula and di- rect practice. Kurland and Salmon’s (1992, 1996, 2002, 2004) warning that group work theory and principles may be absorbed into the genera- list practice is one not to be reflected upon lightly. Rather it must be a catalyst for those of us who believe passionately in the magic and the power of group work to create a movement that elevates the method to its rightful central place before the practice of true social group work reaches its extinction.

REFERENCES

Bernstein, S. (1973). Conflict and group work. Explorations in group work. Boston: Charles River Books, pp. 72-106.

Birnbaum, M.L. and Auerbach, C. (1994). Group work in graduate social work educa- tion: The price of neglect. Journal of Social Work Education, 36 (2): 347-356.

Cohen, C.S. (1995). Making it happen: From great idea to successful support group. Social Work with Groups, 18 (1): 67-80.

Cohen, M.B. and Mullender, A. (1999). The personal in the political: Exploring the group work continuum from individual to social change goals. Social Work with Groups, 22 (1): 18-31.

Dies, R. R. (1995). Group psychotherapies. In Gurman, A., and Messer, S. Essential psychotherapies: Theory and practice. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 515-550.

Flexner, A. (1915) Is social work a profession? In Proceedings of the National Confer- ence of Charities and Corrections (pp. 576- 590). Chicago: National Conference on Charities and Correction.

Kris Drumm 29

Garvin, C. (2001). The potential impact of small-group research on social group work practice. In Kelly, T., Berman-Rossi, T., Palombo, S. (Eds.). Group work: Strate- gies for strengthening resiliency. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 51-70.

Getzel, G. (2003). Group work and social justice: Rhetoric or action? In Sullivan, N., Mesbur, E. S., Lang, N., Goodman, G., Mitchell, L. (Eds). Social work with groups: Social justice through personal, community and societal change. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 53-64.

Getzel, G., Kurland, R., and Salmon, R. (1987). Teaching and learning the practice of social group work: Four curriculum tools. In J. Lassner, K. Powell, Finnegan, E. (Eds.). Social group work: Competence and values in practice. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 35-49.

Gitterman, A. (2003). The meaning, scope, and context of the concept of social justice in social work with groups. In Sullivan, N., Mesbur, E. S., Lang, N., Goodman, G., Mitchell, L. (Eds). Social work with groups: Social justice through personal, com- munity and societal change. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 25-34.

Greenfield, W., and Rothman, B. (1987). Termination or transformation? Evolving be- yond termination in groups. In J. Lassner, K. Powell, Finnegan, E. (Eds.). Social group work: Competence and values in practice. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 51-66.

Henry, S. (2003). Social group work, social justice. In Sullivan, N., Mesbur, E. S., Lang, N., Goodman, G., Mitchell, L. (Eds). Social work with groups: Social justice through personal, community and societal change. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 65-78.

Kurland, R., and Salmon, R. (1992). Group work vs. casework in a group: Principles and implications for teaching and practice. Social Work with Groups, 15 (4): 3-14.

Kurland, R., and Salmon, R. (1998). Purpose: A misunderstood and misused keystone of group work practice. Social Work with Groups, 21 (3): 5-17.

Kurland, R., and Salmon, R. (1992). Making a joyful noise: Presenting, promoting and portraying group work to and for the profession. Plenary presentation at the 14th annual symposium of the association for the advancement of social work with groups. Atlanta, Georgia. Also in (1996) Stempler, B., Glass, M. (Eds.) Social group work today and tomorrow: Moving from theory to advanced training and practice. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc. pp. 19-32.

Kurland, R., and Salmon, R. (2002). Caught in the doorway between education and practice: group work’s battle for survival. Plenary presentation at the 24th annual symposium of the association for the advancement of social work with groups. Brooklyn, New York. Also In Press, Cohen, C., Philips, M., and Hanson, M. (Eds.) Think group: Strength and diversity in group work. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Kurland, R., and Salmon, R. (1999). Teaching a methods course in social work with groups. Alexandria, VA: The Council on Social Work Education, Inc.

Kurland R., and Salmon R., (2004). The survival of social group work: A call to action. Social Work with Groups, 27 (1): 3-16.

30 MAKING JOYFUL NOISE: THE ART, SCIENCE, AND SOUL OF GROUP WORK

Magen, R. (1998). Practice with groups. In Mattiani, M., Lowry, C., Meyer, C. (Eds.). The foundations of social work practice. Washington, DC: NASW Press, pp. 108-208.

Middleman, R. (1980). The use of program: Review and update. Social Work with Groups, 3 (3): 5-23.

Middleman, R. and Wood, G. G. (1990). Skills for direct practice in social work. New York: Columbia University Press.

Middleman, R.R. (1990, October). Group work and the heimlich maneuver: Unchoking social work education. In Fike, D., and Rittner, B. (Eds.). Working from strengths: The essence of group work. Miami Shores: Center for Group Work Stud- ies, pp. 16-40.

Northen, H. and Kurland, R. (2001) Social work with groups. (3rd ed.) New York: Co- lumbia University Press.

Northen, H. (1976). Psychosocial Practice in Small Groups. In Roberts, R. and Northen, H. Theories of social work with groups, NY: Columbia University Press.

Northen, H. (1987). Selection of groups as the preferred modality of practice. In J. Lassner, K. Powell, and Finnegan, E. (Eds.). Social group work: Competence and values in practice. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 19-34.

O’Conner, D. L. (2002). Toward empowerment: Re-visioning family support groups. Social Work with Groups, 25 (4): 37-46.

Rubin, M. (2002). Making curriculum purposeful in group work with persons with se- vere mental illnesses. In S. Henry, J. East, and C. Schmitz (Eds.). Social work with groups: Mining the gold. (2002) New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., pp. 163-183.

San Diego State University and AASWG (2003). Maximizing outcomes by mastering group work skills. 224 Hannalei Drive, Vista, CA.

Schwartz, W. (1971). On the use of groups in social work practice. In W. Schwartz and Z.R. Zalba (Eds.). The practice of group work. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 3-24.

Shaffer and Galinsky, M. (1989) Models of group therapy (2nd ed). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shulman, L. (1999). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups and communi- ties. (4th ed.) Itsaca, IL: F.E.Peacock Publishers, Inc.

Steinberg, D.M. (1993). Some findings from a study on the impact of group work edu- cation on social practitioners’ work with groups. Social Work with Groups, 16 (3): 23-39.

Steinberg, D. M. (2002). The magic of mutual aid. Social Work with Groups. 25 (1/2): 31-39.

Steinberg, D. M. (2004). The mutual aid approach to working with groups: Helping people help one another. (2nd. ed.) New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Wright, W. (1999). The use of purpose in on-going activity groups: A framework for maximizing the therapeutic impact. Social Work with Groups, 22 (2/3): 31-54.

Kris Drumm 31