The Study of Small Groups

Abstract

facing the research reported in the area of small groups between 1967 and 19728 is both impressed by the quantity of data presented and depressed by the general absence of excitement and new theoretical formulations. The area loosely defined as group dynamics has never been characterized by a unifying theoretical position. Psychological Abstracts lists roughly 3400 studies related to groups since the last review by Gerard & Miller (44). A large proportion of this research seems to be following established lines of investigation with little or no concern for external validit y or potential applications. From the point of advanc­ ing the field, it may be that much of this research comes closer to exemplifying a psychological Gresham's Law that bad research drives out than Kurt Lewin's notion that nothing is so practi cal as a good the ory. Our disenchantment with both the theoretical and the mundane significance of much of the past decade's literature (as well as the pragmatic impossibility of achieving a comprehensive review) has dictated an eclectic and biased approach to our topic. At this time it appears that the questions asked (or unasked) are more intriguing than the answers produced to date. We have, therefore, concen­ trated on approaches where methodology, theoretical impact, or application seem most promising, and have attempted to cite reviews summa rizing research in those areas we have sli ghted. Several recent works of general interest to the student of small groups are worthy of note. The revised edition of Cartwright & Zander (21) remains an excellent general introduction to group dynamics. The second edition of the Handbook of Social Psychology (73) also contains several relevant chapters by Lindzey & Byrne (74), Tagiuri (117), Kelley & Thibaut (67), Collins & Raven (23), and Gibb (45). A work of value to students of groups in isolation and under stress is a National Academy of Science volume, Human Factors in Long Duration Spaceflight (91). METHODOLOGY