INTEGRATING RESEARCH WITH CONFERENCE LEARNING: 10 YEARS OF Q METHODOLOGY STUDIES EXPLORING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN THE TAVISTOCK TRADITION

Authors

  • Robert Lipgar University of Chicago Medical Center
  • John Bair Finch University of Health Sciences
  • Christopher Fichtner Finch University of Health Sciences

Keywords:

Tavistock model, Q methodology, leadership, learning stiles, role of the consultant

Abstract

Empirical assessment and self-study procedures were implemented during a series of nonresidential weekend group relations conferences in the Tavistock tradition and were used to augment conference learning for staff and members. These studies were organized and conducted so that focus on the conference’s primary task was maintained. Findings of several studies of leadership, learning styles, and the role of the consultant are discussed. Administrative and methodological problems encountered in integrating research with conference learning are also reviewed. Because of the Tavistock model’s distinctive emphasis on subjectivity and on learning through direct experience of covert and often primitive processes, a research methodology compatible with experiential learning was sought. Q methodology made it possible to obtain quantifiable, objective, in-depth information about values, attitudes, and dispositions characteristic of individuals and of individuals and groups in interrelationship. The Q studies were carried out over a 10-year period as an integral part of conference work. Learning based on firsthand observations and experience was combined with feedback based on systematic empirical research. The staff reviewed research findings in post-conference sessions to promote their development and competency. Conducting research in the context of group relations conferences provides experience in dealing with conflicting attitudes toward relying on knowledge based on personal experience, empirical data, or theory for decision-making. The results of this study have implications for conducting self-study and assessment outcome evaluations in other institutions and organizational settings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

——— (1962). Learning from experience. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

——— (1965). Transformations. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bradley, D. (1987). A Q methodology study of the conceptual framework of small study group consultants. Doctoral dissertation. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Brown, S.R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Edelson, M. (1970). Sociotherapy and psychotherapy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Exner, J.E. (1978). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system Vol. 2: Current research and advanced interpretation. New York: Wiley.

Hayden, C. & Carr, W. (1991). Responsibility, accountability, and ethics in organizations: The evaluation of group relations conference consultants. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Scientific Meeting of the A. K. Rice Institute, St. Louis, MO.

Lieberman, M.A., Yalom, I., and Miles, M.A. (1973). Encounter groups: First facts, New York: Basic Books.

Lipgar, R.M. (1965). Subjective probability notions, guessing behavior, and their personality correlates. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

——— (1992a). The problem of R in the Rorschach: The value of varying responses. Journal of Projective Assessment 58(2): 223-30.

——— (1992b). A programme of group relations research: emphasis on inquiry and the trial of techniques. Group analysis 25: 365-75.

——— (1993). Views of the consultant’s role: A Q methodology study. In Changing group relations: The next 25 years. Ed. T.W. Hugg, N.M.Carson, and R.M. Lipgar. Jupiter, FL: A. K. Rice Institute.

Lipgar, R.M. & Bair, J.P. (1997). Appraising small study group consultants’ effectiveness: The compatibility of Q Methodology and the A. K. Rice Institute. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Biennial Meeting of the A. K. Rice Institute, April -3-6, Houston, TX.

Lipgar, R.M. & Struhl, S. (1995). Learning for leadership: Member-learning during group relations conferences. In Community/Chaos: Proceedings of the Eleventh Scientific Meeting of the A.K. Rice Institute. Ed. K.L. West, C. Hayden, and R.M. Sharrin. Jupiter, FL: A. K. Rice Institute.

Miller, E.J. & Rice, A.K. (1967). Systems of organization. London: Tavistock Publicatons, Ltd.

Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Rice, A.K. (1965). Learning for leadership. London: Tavistock Publications, Ltd.

Parsons, T. et al. (1951). Some fundamental categories of the theory of action: A general statement. In Toward a general theory of action. Ed. T. Parsons and E. Shils. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Smith, N.W. (2001). Operant subjectivity: objectivity of subjectivity. Chapter 11 in Current systems in psychology: History, research, and applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

——— (1978). Concourse theory of communication. Communication 3: 21-40.

Downloads

Published

2019-10-20

How to Cite

Lipgar, R., Bair, J., & Fichtner, C. (2019). INTEGRATING RESEARCH WITH CONFERENCE LEARNING: 10 YEARS OF Q METHODOLOGY STUDIES EXPLORING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN THE TAVISTOCK TRADITION. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 3(1), 13–28. Retrieved from https://www.hrp-journal.com/index.php/pru/article/view/137