To accompany the slides of a seminar presentation I am about to give next week, I have written out some of my thoughts around it. They form the tip of a theoretical iceberg that I am carving out in my thesis.
Little has been researched
about group activities and interventions that generate sustained beneficial
effects for adults, and even less where writing is the medium for their
development.
I emphasise groups, to differentiate from the studies
of the benefits of individual writing, which is mostly not shared with others
(e.g. Pennebaker).
I hope to play a part in the formation of a
systematic conceptual base, starting with my own experience. I want to find
academically accepted concepts to tell what happens to people in the process of
writing ‘together’.
My experiences of facilitating
writing groups with participants who had issues in common, like post-traumatic
stress, showed me that people got much more out of the process than they
expected at the start. Studying these reactions several years after the groups
had ended, I concluded that the ‘much more’ above their initial expectations
was a complex of changing behaviours and attitudes to the world. This
combination of features I have come to call personal development in a wide
sense of the term.
If ‘clinical’ writing groups
(with persons who share particular problems) indeed possess such a
developmental potential, they might be useful in non-clinical populations too.
This is the heart of the study “Personal Development in Structured Writing
Groups’, which is now in its last year before completion.
The immediate purpose of
clinical groups may be easier to comprehend. In groups that share a common
issue, like refugees or sufferers from and survivors of an illness, trust often
begins with a helpful illusion of mutual understanding: ‘We’re all in the same
boat’.
In a similar vein, assessing the extent of coping with the affliction,
rather than with life in general, appears a straightforwardly practical
evaluation of effectiveness of clinical groups. It seems to me that if personal
development can be convincingly shown to occur in adults who do not share a
particular clinical feature, it would be a strong argument in favour of using
structured writing in adult groups of any kind.
Four 12-session writing groups,
20 people, recruited from ‘general’ populations in the Leeds area provided much
enjoyment and - not to forget the data. Will the analysis of these data show my belief
about the developmental power of writing in a group to have some foundation?
Well, this depends entirely on how I define personal development and on the
assumptions underlying the concepts I use. More widely stated, it depends on my
philosophy, my view of the world. ‘Science probes; it does not prove’, wrote
Bateson (1979) and I learned that he was right. Other assumptions, a different
definition, are likely to show other processes.
One basic assumption is that
personal development is possible regardless of age.
A second assumption
is that people construct the meaning of their experiences together through
communication and it is this meaning that guides their behaviour. In a writing
group the individual world views of the participants meet with each other and
can be contrasted and negotiated, possibly leading to adoption of more and
wider perspectives.
Both assumptions are about
learning and learning requires curiosity and openness, which thrive when
feeling safe and shrivel when anxious.
Feeling safe is related to
feeling that one understands what is going on, in the group and in the world,
that one can somehow cope with it and that whatever happens is somehow
meaningful. These three components form the Sense of Coherence, developed by
Aaron Antonovsky (1979, 1987), which plays an important part in my
investigation.
Personal development as
defined for this study is a perceivable change towards lasting flexibility in
behaviour, cognition, emotion, coping, and (inter)personal communication,
occurring in a person.
I strongly suspect structured
writing in groups of engendering such development in the form of generative
learning (Bateson, 1964), which is a change in the frame of reference, a shift
to higher-order thinking, creating ever more changes that give access to
behavioural options (Cune, 2010; Nicholas, 1984). An adequate, or growing Sense
of Coherence serves to curb growing flexibility from causing harm to the person
instead of benefit 4.
References
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, Stress and Coping. 1 ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unravelling the Mystery of Health, How
People Manage Stress and Stay Well. 1 ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1987) Sense of
Coherence – Orientation to Life Questionnaire (appendix). In Unravelling the Mystery of Health. San
Francisco:Jossey-Bass. 189-94.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature, a necessary unity. New
York: Dutton.
Bateson, G. (1964). The Logical Categories of
Learning and Communication. In Steps to
an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution,
and Epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 279-308.
Cune, C. (2010). An Exploration of the Nature of Personal Development Processes in my
Writing Groups. Unpublished MA dissertation. University of Sussex.
Available via email: write.ingroup@gmail.com
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. C.W. Morris ed., University of Chicago
Press.
Neimeyer, R.A. (2009). Constructivist Psychotherapy. CBT Distinctive Features series,
London, NY: Routledge.
Nicholas, M.W. (1984) Change in the Context of Group Therapy. NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Smyth, J M., and Pennebaker, J W. (2008)
Exploring the Boundary Conditions of Expressive Writing: in Search of the Right
Recipe. British Journal of Health
Psychology 13, 1-7.