1. Grounded Theory is intended to illuminate social and psychological processes that unfold over time. Present and describe the primary social and psychological processes presented in the Okech & Kline and the Rubel & Kline articles and very briefly state how they evolve over time.In both studies, the researchers aimed to explain the social process of interacting in a group.
Okech & Kline’s article, though, was more focused on the social process between two people, whereas Rubel & Kline’s was targeted towards explaining the social process between one person and a group. Still, even with differing focal points, both researches still had the same psychological process they wanted to describe – that of the factors that affect how they perceive their co-leaders and/or group members and how they go about in working within a partnership or group setting. As both studies develop, the researches come to a conclusion that the social and psychological processes that they want to explain and describe are intertwined.2.
Well crafted Grounded Theory studies conceptualize social and psychological processes and demonstrate the interaction of these processes. Briefly discuss how the authors’ researches describe the interactions of the social and psychological processes.In the Okech & Kline research, the theory states that perception of a co-leader is highly based on their emotional openness – a concept that is both social and psychological. In finding out how co-leaders work, Okech & Kline found out that participants engage in the psychological process of ‘sizing up’ their partners and weighing how much information they can reveal to their co-leaders.
As with the Rubel & Kline article, the social and psychological processes interact in that to be able to effectively guide the group, a leader must rely on his/her memory bank to decipher which acts will be effective in a given situation.3. Discuss how these articles contribute to your knowledge and echo your experiences as a group leader. Provide some specific examples.Since we pretty much live in a society where everyone is interconnected and where people pretty much have to interact with each other – as the saying goes, “No man is an island” – it is inevitable that I will have to work in a group one time or another. And in the future events that I’d be immersed in a group, there might also be a time when I have to be the leader or co-lead with another person.
Because of this, it is very important that I know how I would have to act when I’m already in a group. In this aspect, both Okech & Kline’s and Rubel & Kline’s researches contribute to my knowledge about group interaction. Okech & Kline’s research specifically helped me in understanding the undercurrents of co-leading a group. With their discussion of the results, I am now aware as to how I can better build a working relationship with someone whom I have to lead a group with.
As with the Rubel & Kline article, it contributed to my know-how regarding how experienced counsellors lead group sessions. This knowledge, in turn, will help me in improving my own counselling style. Both researches in a way reflected the way I now work as a leader. Rubel & Kline’s research made me understand that even with pre-existing knowledge and pre-conceived perceptions about a situation (or a group member), I need to be flexible enough to accommodate new point of views while working in a group. With “in-the-moment” leadership process, I should learn to adapt to the situation being presented and act accordingly.
Okech & Kline’s research, on the other hand, made me realize that co-leading is not merely a professional relationship but may overstep boundaries and in turn become a personal one. It shed some light as to why some of my former co-leading experiences failed. Before, when I have difficulty trusting a co-leader, I tend to hold off my emotions and try to keep our conversations to those involving only our group. These were also the moments when I’d say that the group more or less failed to achieve what it set out to do. Upon reading the article by Okech & Kline, I now understood why that happened.
4. Grounded Theory research conceptualizes social and psychological processes in order to develop theoretical statements of the phenomena being studied. Briefly summarize the theory presented in each of these articles.Okech & Kline’s research came up with a theory regarding co-leadership.
They came up to the conclusion that to be effective co-leaders, the two people working together should be able to trust each other. Both must spend time developing their relationship so they can be open about their experiences and perceptions of each – something that is important to make a co-leadership experience successful. The theory derived by Rubel & Kline, on the other hand, revolved around the way expert leaders conduct their work. Their theory states that expert leaders’ leadership is influenced by their previous experiences, their pre-existing knowledge and attitudes, and an in-the-moment procedure.
5. Briefly compare and contrast the data collection and analysis process for each article. What is your opinion of how data collection and analysis processes influenced the findings of these articles?Both the researches made use of multiple interviews to further unearth and refine their theories. Also utilized were prolonged engagement and triangulation to ensure the validity of the theories they have come up with.
Both research also engaged in a review of existing literature to make sure that their findings are parallel to the body of knowledge currently in existence. Okech & Kline’s research, though, did not just rely on interviews, unlike Rubel & Kline’s. The first one also lists under its data collection processes a researcher’s journal and a follow-up focus group discussion.Okech & Kline’s usage of a researcher’s journal, although intended to strengthen the emerging theory, may have tinged the research with the researcher’s subjectivity. As Okech herself wrote, the researcher’s journal included reflective notes that described her “personal thoughts, feelings, problems, ideas, and impressions that occurred during and after interviews and data analysis.
” (Okech & Kline, 2005) This can be pretty problematic as those that go into the journal may be central only to what the researcher is thinking. The journal should have come with specific criteria and should have been validated with another researcher’s observations to make it more reliable. But the use of a focus group to further confirm the emerging theory was a good move on the part of Okech & Kline’s. This strengthened the findings gathered in the interviews.As for Rubel & Kline’s methodology, conducting three interviews was also commendable because it allowed for “filling in” of the weak aspects of the emerging theory. However, since interviews were conducted by phone, the data collected may have been weaker compared to if it were actually done in person.
According to John Creswell (1994), person-to-person interview is better than a phone interview as it allowed a researcher to observe non-verbal cues that may signal whether or not a statement is to be taken at face level. The data analysis procedure of both researches is indeed creditable because the processes used were geared towards eliminating any biases and may have resulted to more trustworthy findings. 6. What makes these articles “good” research and what are their limitations?As I have mentioned, both research engaged in prolonged engagement and triangulation to strengthen the validity, credibility, and dependability of their researches. In this aspect, both the Okech & Kline and Rubel & Kline articles were “good” researches. Also, what was noticeable was the effort to eliminate researcher bias.
The Okech & Kline research even outlined what may possibly be the leaning of the researcher and stated the procedures applied to eliminate the bias. Both articles outlined what may possibly be the limitations of their own research. Okech & Kline mentioned that the use of a focus group discussion may be listed as their research’s limitation. As they wrote, “Focus groups, by their very nature, create environments where participants influence each other’s involvement and contributions.Thus, some co-leaders may not have actively shared because of the presence of their co-leader.
” Another limitation that they listed was the “limited cultural diversity” of the participants. All of those that participated were Caucasians and the results may be grounded only on the specific culture. The same limitation goes for the Rubel & Kline research. All the participants were of Euro-American descent. As such, the demographics may have also “skewed” the findings because of shared myths and/or fronts. 7.
What do you see as the strengths and limitations of Grounded Theory research in Counsellor Education?Grounded Theory is very useful in Counsellor Education because the procedures in approaching it are very structured. It allows for researchers to focus only on a specific phenomenon. And since the theory is “consistent with participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon under study”, as written by Okech & Kline, and is sensitive, according to Rubel & Kline, a researcher can be assured that the findings are really telling of the situation at hand. 8. Name two examples of potential Grounded Theory studies in counsellor education.
Rubel & Kline already outlined possible researches in counsellor education that can be conducted using Grounded Theory. Among their list of future researches, I think the one where Grounded Theory can be most applicable is the study of group members’ experience. Basing on the questions structured by the Rubel & Kline research on accumulating participants, I think a future research can outline what group members consider expert leadership. Since results will come from actual group members, the findings can aid leaders in improving leadership styles. Also useful will be outlining a beginning or intermediate group leader’s experience. It will be interesting to see how they go about their tasks and try to aim at being better leaders.
