Skip to main content

The Power of Group Discussion: Enhancing Reflexivity in Professionals’ Practice When Dealing with Family Diversity

Systemic Practice and Action Research volume 28, pages 297–314 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper describes an action research study that illustrates the potential of group discussion to enhance reflexivity on professionals’ theoretical and technical models that foster a change in their practice when facing contemporary family diversity. Focus groups were carried out with thirty-five experienced professionals (females, N = 22; males, N = 12; mean age = 45 years) working in the Italian Health Care System (IHCS). Group discussions centered on clinical cases involving same-sex families, an emerging phenomenon in Italy and still subject to social stigma. Our results showed that group discussion allowed professionals to develop a communicative process through which they changed their initial prejudiced positions. This process was named the group re-orienting process and four progressive phases were recognized: (a) defense (b) familiarization with novelty (c) self-reflection and (d) generation. Each phase is described in detail using extracts from focus group data. Implications for training and intervention are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. According to Moscovici (1961), familiarization is the process through which representations are formed, reducing the problem posed by novelty, and allowing the individual to handle the transformation of representations, relying on and yet transforming aspects of consolidated knowledge. For more detail on this topic see also Duveen and Loyd (1990) and Jodelet (1991).

References

  • Beier L, Hofacker D, Marchese E, Rupp M (2010) Family structures and family forms. Working report. Family platform. http://www.familyplatform.eu/en/1-major-trends/reports. Accessed 21 July 2012

  • Bernal G (2006) Intervention development and cultural adaptation research with diverse families. Fam Process 45:143–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binger JJ, Gottlieb AR (eds) (2007) Interventions with families of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: from the inside out. Taylor & Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrill CS, Carletta J, Carter AJ, Dawson J, Garrod S, Rees A, Richards A, Shapiro D, West MA (2000) The effectiveness of health care teams in the National Health Service. Aston Centre for Health Service Organization Research, Birmingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Brits H, du Plessis L (2007) Application of focus group interviews for quality management: an action research project. Syst Pract Action Res 2:117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capozzi P, Lingiardi V (2003) Happy Italy? The Mediterranean experience of homosexuality, psychoanalysis and mental health professions. J Gay Lesbian Psychother 5:29–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu LF (1998) Woman-To-Woman: promoting cervical screening among minority ethnic women in primary care, a participatory action research project (1995–1997). A research report. Rotherham: Department of Health Promotion, Rotherham Health Authority

  • Chiu LF (2003) Transformational potential of focus group practice in participatory action research. Action Res 1:165–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels H (2011) Analyzing trajectories of professional learning in changing workplaces. Cult Psychol 3:359–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu C (2002) Team innovation and team effectiveness: the importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 3:285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duveen G, Lloyd B (eds) (1990) Social representations and the development of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fruggeri L (2005) Diverse normalità. Psicologia sociale delle relazioni familiari. Carocci, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganong LH, Coleman M (2004) Stepfamily relationships: development, dynamics and interventions. Plenum, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen KJ (2009) Dialogue as collaborative action. Journal fur Psychologie, Retrieved: http://twoja-zaloga.pl/index.php/jfp/article/view/155/156

  • Gergen KJ, McNamee S, Barrett FJ (2001) Toward transformative dialogue. Int J Public Adm 24:679–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen MM, Gergen KJ, Barrett F (2004) Appreciative inquiry as dialogue: generative and transformative. In: Cooperrider DL, Avital M (eds) Constructive discourse and human organization. Advances in appreciative inquiry, vol 1. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 3–27

  • Gilmore T, Krantz J, Ramirez R (1986) Action based modes of inquiry and the host-researcher relationship. Consultation 5:160–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart E, Bond M (1995) Action research for health and social care: A guide to practice. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill ME, Augustinus M (2001) Stereotype change and prejudice reduction: short and long-term evaluation of a cross-cultural awareness program. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol 11:243–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman L (1990) Constructing realities: an art of lenses. Fam Process 29:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Istat 2011 I cittadini non comunitari regolarmente soggiornanti. http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/67648. Accessed 21 July 2012

  • Jodelet D (1991) Madness and social representations. Harvester/Wheatsheaf, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreppner K (2002) Retrospect and prospect in the psychological studies of families as a system. In: McHale J, Grolnick W (eds) Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of families. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 225–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger RA (1994) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingiardi V, Falanga S, D’Augelli A (2005) The evaluation of homophobia in an Italian sample: an exploratory study. Arch Sex Behav 34:81–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madriz E (2003) Focus group in feminist research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, 2nd edn. Sage, London, pp 363–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni S (2002) Nuove costellazioni familiari. Giuffre, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamee S (1992) Social construction and process of inquiry. AFTA Newslett 47:37–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici S (1961) La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici S, Doise W (1994) Conflict & consensus. A general theory of collective decisions. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce B (1994) Interpersonal communications. Making social worlds. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport R (1989) Ideologies about family forms: towards diversity. In: Boh K, Bak M, Clason C, Pankratova M, Qvortrup J, Sgritta G, Waerness K (eds) Changing patterns of European family life. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt PC (1995) Metaphors of family systems theory. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schippers MC, Den Hartog DN, Koopman PL (2007) Reflexivity in teams: a measure and correlates. Appl Psychol 56:189–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seal DW, Bogart LM, Ehrhardt AA (1998) Small group dynamics: the utility of focus group discussions as a research method. Gr Dyn 4:253–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringer ET (2007) Action research, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Custem C (1998) La famille recompose. Editions Erès, Toulouse

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh F (2012) Normal family processes. Growing diversity and complexity. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • West M (2002) Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Appl Psychol 51:355–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson S (1998) Focus group in feminist research: power, interaction and the co-construction of meaning. Women’s Stud Int Forum 21:111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Parma, Borgo Carissimi 10, 43121, Parma, Italy

    Marina Everri, Laura Fruggeri & Elena Venturelli

Authors
  1. Marina Everri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Fruggeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elena Venturelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Everri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Everri, M., Fruggeri, L. & Venturelli, E. The Power of Group Discussion: Enhancing Reflexivity in Professionals’ Practice When Dealing with Family Diversity. Syst Pract Action Res 28, 297–314 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-014-9332-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-014-9332-1

Keywords

  • Focus group
  • Reflexivity
  • Action research
  • Communicative processes
  • Same-sex families
  • Professional practice