Defining diversity in groupwork: A relational exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the basic assumptions underlying all traditional definitions is that diversity is a characteristic of an individual or a group, which is a problematic to groupwork. This paper explores Phases 1 and 2 of a multi-method research project exploring groupworkers’ understandings of diversity and how their perceptions impact their approach to group processes, with implications for group practice advancement. The project consists of sequential phases following a mixed-methods design. In the initial phase, in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted individually with 24 groupworkers. While the second phase (phase two) consisted of 4 focus groups involving theoretical and criterion sampling strategies to interview experienced therapeutically-oriented groupworkers in Western and Eastern Canada. The analysis was guided by Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) constant comparative method involving open-coding, followed by axial coding, and concluded with selective coding. Groupworkers reported feeling overwhelmed and, in some cases, “paralyzed” by the complex diversity present in their groups. These findings suggest attention to group diversity renders it potentially more relevant and salient. We also found the levels and complexity of diversity increased as the reflection by groupworkers deepened. In keeping with the traditional aims of groupwork, attending to diversity goes beyond the group to include responses to diversity in the organizational and community contexts. Dialogue and change in organizational responses to diversity is important in the areas of organizational climate, allocation of resources, and agency policy and procedures. Accordingly, offering groupworkers and members tools to attend and navigate diversity in situ is a first step towards recognizing its presence and importance. A critical step in moving forward is to examine the nuances of diversity and move beyond thinking of diversity in terms of demographic variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".