A Reflection on the (Harvard) Case Method from a Group Dynamics Perspective: Connecting Transcendent Knowledge with Immanent Phenomena

Chapter

Zusammenfassung

The aim of the paper is to show how the combination of the (Harvard) case method (HCM) and the group dynamics approach (GDa) can be beneficial for students, teachers and teaching institutions. The benefits and risks of both methods are critically reflected. To provide orientation, a synopsis of the (Harvard) case method is presented and compared with aspects of the group dynamics approach.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Badger, J. (2010): Classification and framing in the case method: discussion leaders’ questionsGoogle Scholar
  2. Banet, A. G./ Hayden, C (1977): A Tavistock primer. In J. E. Jones & J. W. Pfeiffer (Eds.), The 1977 annual handbook for group facilitators (155‐167). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, L. B./ Christensen, C. R./ Hansen, A. J. (1994): Teaching and the case method: Text, cases, and readings. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barter, N. B., & Tregidga, H. (2014): Storytelling Beyond the Academic Article: Using Fiction, Art and Literary Techniques to Communicate. Journal Of Corporate Citizenship, (54), 5‐10.Google Scholar
  5. Bion, W. R. (2013): Experiences in groups: And other papers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Boyatzis, R. E. (2008): Competencies in the 21st century. [Editorial]. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 5‐12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840730
  7. Bristol, S. (2013): Five elements of authentic discourse. In öggo (eds.), Here & now. Collected writings on group dynamics. Vienna: Verlagshaus Hernals.Google Scholar
  8. Charan, R. (1976): Classroom techniques in teaching by the case method. Academy of Management Review, 1(3), 116‐123.Google Scholar
  9. Cobuilt (1999): Collins Cobuilt English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Colman, A./ Bexton, H. (eds) (1975): Group Relations Reader 1. Washington D.C.: A. K. Rice Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Colman, A./ Geller, M. (eds) (1985): Group Relations Reader 2. Washington D.C.: A. K. Rice Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Cytrynbaum, S./ Noumair, D. (2004): Group Dynamics, Organizational Irrationality, and Social Complexity: Group Relations Reader 3. Washington D.C.: A. K. Rice Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Desiraju, R./ Gopinath, C. (2001): Encouraging participation in case discussions: A comparison of the MICA and the Harvard case methods. Journal of Management Education, 25(4), 394‐408.Google Scholar
  14. Ellet, W. (2007): The case study handbook: How to read, discuss, and write persuasively about cases. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  15. Feyerabend, P. (2010 [1975]): Against Method. London: Verso, 4th edition.Google Scholar
  16. Feyerabend, P. (1987 [1978]): Science in a Free Society. London: Verso, 4th impression.Google Scholar
  17. Foerster, H. v./ Pörksen, B. (2008): Warheit ist die Erfindung eines Lügners. [Truth is the invention of a liar. Translated by R. J. S.] Heidelberg: Carl‐Auer, 8th ed.Google Scholar
  18. Forman, J., & Rymer, J. (1999): The genre system of the Harvard case method. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13(4), 373‐400.Google Scholar
  19. French, R. B./ Simpson, P. (2010): Theʹwork groupʹ: Redressing the balance in Bionʹs Experiences in Groups. Human Relations, 63 (12): 1859‐1878. ISSN 0018‐7267 Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/12886
  20. Gadamer, H‐G. (2010): Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. (7. Aufl.) Tübingen: Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
  21. Gipe, J. P., Richards, J. C., Levitov, J., & Speaker, R. (1991): Psychological and personal dimensions of prospective teachersʹ reflective abilities. Educational and psychological measurement, 51(4), 913‐922.Google Scholar
  22. Hattie, J. (2009): Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Heindl, A. (2007): Theatrale Intervention. Von der mittelalterlichen Konfliktregelung mit Ritualen über die frühindustrielle Disziplinierung zur zeitgenössischen Aufstellungsund Theaterarbeit in Organisationen und Unternehmen. Wien: Dissertation Universität Wien.Google Scholar
  24. Heintel, P. (ed.) (2006): Betrifft Team. Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  25. Heintel, P. (2005): Widerspruchsfelder, Systemlogiken und Grenzdialektiken als Ursprung notwendinger Konflikte. In Falk, G./ Heintel, P./ Krainz, E. E. (eds.): Handbuch Mediation und Konfliktmanagement. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  26. Hirsch, M. (2014): Schuld und Schuldgefühl. Zur Psychoanalyse von Trauma und Introjekt. 6th edition. Göttingen/ Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  27. Hirschhorn, L. (1985): The psychodynamics of taking the role. In Colman, A./ Geller, M. (eds) (1985): Group Relations Reader 2. Washington D.C.: A. K. Rice Institute.Google Scholar
  28. König, O./ Schattenhofer, K. (2006): Einführung in die Gruppendynamik. Heidelberg: Carl‐ Auer Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Kothari, T. P., & Pingle, S. S. (2015): PERSONALITY TRAITS AND TEACHING STYLE OF MANAGEMENT TEACHERS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 9(2), 16.Google Scholar
  30. Krainz, E. E. (2011): The Indispensability of Organisational Consciousness. In: Lenhard, Hans H. and Conaco, Cecilia (ed.) (2011): Management and HR development ‐ a humanistic approach for integration: post graduate studies in intercultural cooperation, Kassel: kassel university press GmbH, 24‐30Google Scholar
  31. Krainz, E. E. (2006): Gruppendynamik als Wissenschaft. [Group‐dynamics as Science, translated by R.J.S.]. In P. Heintel (Ed.), betrifft: TEAM, Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen [regarding: TEAM, Dynamic Processes within Groups, translated by R.J.S.]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  32. Krainz, E. E. (2005): Erfahrungslernen in Laboratoriumssettings: Trainingsgruppe und Organisationslaboratorium. In: Falk/ G. Heintel, P./ Krainz, E. E. (eds.): Handbuch Mediation und Konfliktmanagement. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  33. Lesjak, B./ Lobnig, H. (2014): The organisation Laboratory. In: Scala, K./ Grossmann, R./ Lenglachner, M./ Mayer, K. (Eds.): Leadership Learning for the Future. North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Lewin, K. (2008 [1997]): Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. Edited by G. W. Lewin. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, A. (2007): The Drama of the Gifted Child. In Search of the True Self. 3rd edition translated by Ruth Ward. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, E. (1993): From dependency to autonomy. Studies in organization and change. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, E.J. (1987): The Leicester Model (Tavistock Institute Occasional Paper No.10). London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.Google Scholar
  38. Naumes, W./ Naumes, M. J. (2006): Art and Craft of Case Writing. ME Sharpe. Inc. Armonk, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Norretranders, T. (1999): The User Illusion. Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  40. ÖGGO (Eds.) (2013): Here & now. Collected writings on group dynamics. Vienna: Verlagshaus Hernals.Google Scholar
  41. Pircher, I./ Schuster, R. J. (2013): Didaktische Betrachtungen zur Lehrveranstaltung “Change Management“. [Didactic View on the Course ‘Change Management’. Translated by the author]. In UAS bfi Vienna [ed.]. Economic Research and Practice Series 19 (Nov. 2013), Vienna, Downloadable at: http://www.fh-vie.ac.at/Forschung/Publikationen/Schriftenreihe. (25 Oct. 2016).
  42. Radel, J. (2016): Digitalisierung in der Aus‐ und Weiterbildung: Der Einsatz von Video‐ Fallstudien. In: J. Nachtwei/ C. von Bernstorff (Hrsg.), HR Consulting Review, No. 07. VQP: Berlin.Google Scholar
  43. Radel (2015a): Case Teaching Training hosted by INSEAD, offered and conducted by The Case CentreGoogle Scholar
  44. Radel (2015b): Case Writing Workshop/Training hosted by INSEAD, offered and conducted by The Case CentreGoogle Scholar
  45. Radel (2013): Case Method Teaching Seminar Part I, hosted by the Harvard Business School, offered and conducted by Harvard Business PublishingGoogle Scholar
  46. Radel (2012a): Case Teaching Training hosted by the IMD, offered and conducted by The Case CentreGoogle Scholar
  47. Radel (2012b): Experience of the case method as a learner at an Executive Education Course at INSEAD (May, 28th ‐ June, 1st, 2012)Google Scholar
  48. Radel (2012c): Experience of the case method as a learner at an Executive Education Course at the London Business School (July 2012)Google Scholar
  49. Radel (2011): Experience of the case method as a learner at an Executive Education Course at the London Business School (September 2011)Google Scholar
  50. Rookes, P./ Willson, J. (2007): Perception. Theory, development and organization. (Cognitive Psychology). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Savery, J. R. (2006): Overview of Problem‐based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem‐Based Learning, 1(1). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541‐5015.1002
  52. Schuster, R. J. (2016a): Einführung in die Didaktik der Selbstorganisation. Didaktisches Konzept zur Erweiterung der Selbstorganisationskompetenz von Studierenden. In: systhemia – Systemische Pädagogik. Band 13. Reihenherausgeber: Arnold, R. Hohengehren: Schneider Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Schuster, R. J. (2016b): Essentials of the course „Organisational and Group Dynamics“. In: Working Paper Series by the UAS bfi Vienna. Vienna: May 2016. Download: http://www.fh‐vie.ac.at/Forschung/Publikationen/FH‐Workingpapers/Essentials‐of-the‐course‐Organisational‐and‐Group‐Dynamics?t=FH‐Workingpapers. (24 Oct. 2016)
  54. Schuster, R. J. (2015): On teaching leadership intervention science in action theoretical background and design of a lecture on leadership. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 46(2), 213‐235.Google Scholar
  55. Segal, L. (2001): The Dream of Reality. Heinz von Foersters Constructivism. New York: Springer 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  56. Shapiro, E./ Carr, A. (2012): An introduction to Tavistock‐style group relations conference learning. Organisational and Social Dynamics, 12(1), 70‐80.Google Scholar
  57. Siciliano, J., & McAleer, G. M. (1997): Increasing student participation in case discussions: Using the MICA method in strategic management courses. Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 209.Google Scholar
  58. Smyth, J. (1989): Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 40(2), 2‐9.Google Scholar
  59. Snyder, P./ McWilliam, P.J. (2003): Using Case Method of Instruction Effectively in Early Intervention Personnel Preparation. Infants and Young Children. Vol. 16 No. 4. 284‐ 295Google Scholar
  60. Wimmer, R. (2006): Das besondere Lernpotenzial der gruppendynamischen T‐Gruppe. In: Heintel, P. (ed.): Betrifft Team. Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  61. Winnicott, D. W. (1960): Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self. In: Winnicott, D.W. Ed., The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development, Karnac Books, London, 140‐152.Google Scholar
  62. Web SourcesGoogle Scholar
  63. Chudler, E. (2016): http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chvision.html (13 Sept. 2016)
  64. Schuster, R. J. (2010): Gruppenreflexion als Kommunikationsinstrument. [Group Reflection as Instrument for Communication. Translated by the author] In UAS bfi Vienna (ed.). Economic Research and Practice Series 13 (Nov. 2010), Vienna, Downloadable at: http://www.fhvie.ac.at/Forschung/Publikationen/Schriftenreihe. Retrieved 25 Oct. 2016.
  65. The Case Centre (2016a): Guidance on teaching notes. Online at: http://www.thecasecentre.org/educators/submitcases/guidance/teachingnotes Retrieved 3 Nov. 2016.
  66. The Case Centre (2016b): Requirements to publish a case. Online at: http://www.thecasecentre.org/educators/submitcases/process/how Retrieved 3 Nov. 2016.
  67. The Case Centre (2016c): http://www.thecasecentre.org/main/aboutus/organisation/whatwedo Retrieved 6 Nov. 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachhochschule BFI WienWienÖsterreich
  2. 2.HTW Berlin, Campus TreskowalleeBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations