7 Sociometric group mapping

Sociometric Group Mapping Psychodrama as a tool in Education Training materials - Module 3 Leonardo Da Vinci project – Transfer of Innovation

INDEX 1.

2.

3.

Module description ...................................................................................... 3 1.1.

Aims ..................................................................................................... 3

1.2.

Learning outcomes............................................................................... 3

1.3.

Organisation of the materials and the workshop ................................... 3

Introduction to theory................................................................................... 5 2.1.

The foundations of sociometry in J.L. Moreno’s writings....................... 6

2.2.

Social atom .......................................................................................... 8

2.3.

Science of action ................................................................................ 10

2.4.

Sociometric methods and techniques ................................................. 12

2.5.

Current issues debated ...................................................................... 17

Introduction to exercises ........................................................................... 19 3.1.

Warm-up ............................................................................................ 20

DIVIDING LINE ......................................................................................... 21 3.2.

Action ................................................................................................. 22

SOCIAL ATOM.......................................................................................... 23 WHAT TO CHOOSE ................................................................................. 24 SYNERGIES ............................................................................................. 26 TRIANGLE OF CONFLICT........................................................................ 27 3.3.

Sharing .............................................................................................. 29

MAP .......................................................................................................... 29 4.

Evaluation ................................................................................................. 31

5.

Bibliography .............................................................................................. 33 5.1.

References in English ........................................................................ 33

2

1. Module description Sociometric Group Mapping is the third module of the course Psychodrama as a Tool in Education (PaTiE). The module can be studied independently from the other parts of the course, although a grasp of the basic concepts and principles of psychodrama may be helpful in better understanding of the content of this part. The course is aimed at VET adult educators who are interested in learning how to apply psychodramatic action methods in the classroom. Basic knowledge of sociometry has the potential to sensitize the teachers to hidden factors in group interactions and provide suggestions on how to disclose them and thus make them available for further work. Accordingly, the method is of potential interest to educators seeking ways to improve their managing of group dynamics. Sociometry is a complex science which cannot be fully presented in the framework of the PaTiE course. Still the basics introduced in this module should provide VET adult educators with sufficient knowledge and skills for implementing simple sociometric exercises in their educational process.

1.1. Aims to introduce VET adult educators to the basics of sociometry in its relevance for education to present a set of sociometric techniques most useful in giving insight into group structure and facilitating team building and conflict management to practically illustrate how these techniques can be implemented in workshop environment to discuss the applicability of the techniques in the participants’ educational practice

1.2. Learning outcomes On completion of the module, the adult educators will be able to: explain the principles of sociometry and its possible benefits for educational practice in VET list three sociometric techniques and argue why and how they can (cannot) be applied in the participants’ own practice propose and run an appropriate sociometric exercise to respond to a particular problem/challenge in a group of adult learners “map” the structure of a sample group and the patters of its inherent relations

1.3. Organisation of the materials and the workshop The materials presented in this module can be used in two ways. First of all, they specify the content of the respective part of the PaTiE curriculum and thus help the trainer plan and run this session of the course. Secondly, the content can be studied by the VET educators, the participants of the course, as supplementary learning materials helpful in understanding and consolidating the methodology learnt at the workshop.

3

The module begins with a presentation of basic concepts and principles of sociometry and the theoretical context in which they originated. The focus is on those aspects of the method which may facilitate team building and resolving tensions in the classroom.

The discussion covers both the benefits which can be gained through the application of the methodology in the context of adult education as well as dangers of irresponsible use of the approach which can lead to serious disturbances in the group process.

The theoretical aspect of the module should not stand in the way of practical demonstrations of the experiential method of sociometry which is nowadays mainly used in psychodrama training. This will be ensured in two ways.

The session follows the general scheme of a psychodrama workshop leading the participants through all the key phases of warm-up, action and sharing.

Sufficient time is given to the introduction of sample sociometric techniques with a view to adapting them to educational contexts.

The activities presented in this module draw on the approaches validated in the framework of the project Psychodrama on the educational stage (POTENS) which developed innovation to be transferred to the PaTiE project. These approaches have been further elaborated for this module through the subject literature study and piloting of chosen techniques in workshops for adult learners. This complementary input is reflected in all the three main parts of the module: The theoretical part focuses on those aspects of sociometry which proved useful and applicable in the context of adult education. Now the methodology is revised in the view of specific needs of VET adult educators who are the main target group of the PaTiE course. The introduction to theory is drafted in such a way as to briefly present the basics of sociometry and define its unique character as a method of engaging with group dynamics. The theory is closely linked to the practical part of the workshop in line with the psychodramatic philosophy valuing experiential learning. Further reading list is provided for self-study, for those educators willing to gain a deeper insight into the theories behind the method.

The key part of the module introduces a set of sociometric exercises chosen in a way to give the participants a taste of the methodology in all its aspects covered by the course. It is believed that practical introduction to sociometry as a tool in education is a more efficient approach than lecturing or mentoring. Some of the exercises presented here have been validated in the framework of the POTENS project while the others have been designed specifically for the PaTiE course.

The module is planned in such a way as to give both the trainer and the participants a clear indication of the level of attainment of the intended learning outcomes. Each activity introducing a specific aspect of sociometry of interest to VET adult educators is closed by a set of questions which should lead to a discussion involving all the participants and reflecting the level of understanding of the key concepts in focus.

4

2. Introduction to theory Sociometry is a science of human relations originally conceived by J.L. Moreno and further developed by his followers in psychodrama and sociodrama. It studies the formation and construction of groups with a view to depicting, “mapping”, interpersonal relations inherent in them. In particular, the degree of acceptance and rejection among group members is the focus of the investigation. For the purpose of this module we have adopted a definition proposed by the International Sociometry Training Network (www.sociometry.net) as the most comprehensive definition and widely adopted by psychodramatists who are the main user group of the method: “Sociometry is a study of both the quantitative and qualitative interpersonal relations, focused on the number of relationships and the nature of those relationships. We explore the choice-making activity of groups of all kinds, examining choices people make for other persons with whom to interact, share time and space, energy and states of consciousness.”

The definition needs to be further clarified to underline the unique aspects of the method of interest to educators: The focus of the method is practical as sociometric exercises deal with the individual's impact on the group's cohesion, and vice versa, the group’s influence on the individual. Accordingly, sociometry has direct relevance for education facilitating the process of group building, dealing with learners’ isolation and resistance. If applied properly the method can bring results which greatly enhance motivation of the group members to engage in educational tasks.

Sociometric exercises help the participants raise their awareness of the complex nature of relations among the group and better understand how these relations are connected to their personality traits, feelings and beliefs.

Getting to know oneself and developing a better understanding of how the team functions has an essential influence on the evolution of each of the group members and improves their cooperation.

Sociometric techniques facilitate the process of making group decisions, especially in the situations where there are conflicts among the group and consensus needs to be reached.

Sociometry has a theoretical foundation in Moreno’s writings but it is its practical application that is of most interest to teachers and trainers, including VET adult educators. In what follows we will thus outline the main theoretical concepts and principles of sociometry needed to grasp the basics of the science and then focus on concrete exercises which may facilitate group work in educational contexts. However, it must be emphasised that the application of sociometry in education also carries multiple threats in a situation in which the trainer does not possess sufficient knowledge, skills and experience. Thus the following overview of sociometry should be taken as an encouragement for a deeper study of the method which can be partly conducted through reading. Nevertheless, the full grasp of the potential of the method is only achievable through practice under the supervision of a skilled trainer, preferably with the support of a peer group of practitioners.

5

2.1. The foundations of sociometry in J.L. Moreno’s writings Sociometry was invented by Jacob Levy Moreno (cf. chapter 2.1 of the introductory module, “The experiential method of Psychodrama”) in the course of his work on the dynamics of relationships. The core of the science is an intuitive grasp of the fact that people tend to behave in a more spontaneous and creative way when affiliating with others with whom they feel comfortable and, vice versa, tend to get stiff or tense when faced with people perceived as repulsive. This insight is not particularly new or enlightening in itself, still it was developed by Moreno in an original and innovative way.

He ventured into explorations of the invisible currents of attraction or repulsion which underline interpersonal interactions and went even further to proposing tools for “measuring” them. Such a formulation of the main objectives of sociometry immediately opened a complexity of factors which are at play in interpersonal communication which had not been previously subject to scientific investigations.

The bulk of Moreno’s theory is included in his seminal work Who Shall Survive?

Foundations of Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy and Sociodrama, published in three editions in 1934, 1953 and 1978 (now available free in an on-line version on the website of the American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama http://www.asgpp.org/). This book is the foundation of both sociometry theory and practice and still the main source of inspiration for the community of sociometrists. We shall therefore begin with an outline of the key concepts and methods expounded in this treatise.

Moreno was a psychiatrist and the invention of sociometry is firmly rooted in his practice as a doctor. However, the very opening of Who Shall Survive clarifies the scope of his interests and goals which substantially distanced him from the mainstream of science: “A truly therapeutic procedure cannot have less an objective than the whole of mankind. But no adequate therapy can be prescribed as long as mankind is not a unity in some fashion and as long as its organisation remains unknown.” (Who Shall Survive, p. 3) Accordingly, there is a need for a science which would first disclose the social structure of mankind, perceived as a social and organic unity, and then heal it as humanity has come to a state of substantial distortion. In brief, these are the tasks Moreno embarked on in his design of the new science of sociometry, a form of a spiritual quest for a better world in which to live, moderated to some extent by rational scrutiny and empirical data from social experiments. This needs to be stated in the beginning in order not to confuse sociometry with “science” as we know it today. Nevertheless, it is worth realising the novelty and value of Moreno’s insights into the fabric of human interactions which influenced social psychology, group psychotherapy and interpersonal communication training, just to mention the main fields where his input is still visible today.

Any healing process of society needs to be guided by an understanding of what is meant by “health” in this regard. Moreno underlined two principles which should be safeguarded in order for a human being to fully realise their potential: 6

“The cornerstones of sociometric conceptualisation are the universal concepts of spontaneity and creativity. Sociometry has taken these concepts from the metaphysical and philosophical level and brought them to empirical test by means of sociometric method.” (Who Shall Survive, p. 11) The value of human existence lies in free exercise of creative abilities which make man the highest manifestation of infinite creativity which permeates the universe. Both society and culture have value as offering an environment in which humans can flourish as creative beings. However, when they limit this potential through “conserving” the creative energy in artefacts or stereotyped patterns of behaviour they have a destructive influence on the individual, affecting them at the core of their being. This destructive process works most visibly at the level of spontaneity, understood as a state of mind opening up a flow of fresh ideas and feelings. Spontaneity and creativity are twin factors, the former being the catalyser of the latter. When spontaneity is blocked, the human behaviour takes the form of automated response, deprived of the unique qualities of creative action. Moreno saw this phenomenon as a form of pathology rooted in particular forms of societal institutions and organisations which need to be “cured” starting from the smallest “social atoms” in order to effectuate the healing of mankind. To this end he developed sociometry as “a technique of freedom, a technique of balancing the spontaneous social forces to the greatest possible harmony and unity of all”. (Who Shall Survive, p. 8) When we try to move beyond the dense speculative discourse of Moreno towards more concrete ideas of his science we should look at the concept of spontaneity more closely. He defined it as a process which operates in the present and propels the individual to an adequate response to a new situation or a new response to an old situation. Moreno designed and experimented with a number of environments in which this unique skill could be trained or fostered: “theatre of spontaneity”, psychodrama and sociodrama being the best known. Common to these inventions is a play group in which the participants are encouraged to come up with spontaneous expressions.

Moreno could observe in statu nascendi how spontaneity emerges and what its limiting factors are. In particular he focused on the interpersonal processes which affect spontaneous group production and the ways they lead either to a successful harmonious performance or an enactment lacking in unity or harmony. He noticed tendencies which emerge among different members of a group drawing them at one time apart and drawing them at another time together. These tendencies may have different impact on the individuals and the group being sometimes advantageous for the individuals but disadvantageous for the whole, or advantageous for some members while disadvantageous for others. These currents of emotions flow below the surface of the interactions and when they become apparent they are perceived as attractions or repulsions among group members. When it comes to playing on stage these factors have a substantial influence on the spontaneity level of the actors, either supporting a free, uninhibited expression or blocking it. The role of a skilled director is to facilitate the emergence of a group with each of its members free to contribute to the collective of whom they are a part of in line with the natural currents of attractions and repulsions distancing or bonding them together. The overarching objective is to build an enduring and harmonious group for the benefit of all, still respecting the authentic feelings of the participants and ensuring their spontaneity level of minds.

7

The above insights, when applied to the study of society, resulted in the formulation of the law of social gravity and focus on small social groupings in which the formation of societal bonds can be studied like under the microscope. If the whole of mankind is a unity composed of small aggregates, e.g. families, neighbourhoods, clubs, etc., sociology needs to begin as micro-sociology and scientifically investigate the currents of attractions and repulsions below the visible organisational structures. This is sociometry in a nutshell as conceived by Moreno: “Sociometry aspires to be a science within its own right. It is the indispensable prologue for all the social sciences. Without giving up the vision of totality by an inch, it has retreated from the maximum to the minimum, to the social atoms and molecules. It can therefore be called a sociology of the microscopic dynamic events, regardless of the size of the social group to which it is applied, small or large. The result of sociometric development has been that the investigation of the smallest social aggregates has become more interesting than that of the large ones. For the future development of sociometry it may be desirable to separate it as a special discipline and to consider it as a microscopic and microdynamic science underlying all social sciences.” (Who Shall Survive, p. 20)

Remember Sociometry explores the hidden currents of attractions and repulsions among members of small social aggregates with a view to building harmonious groups based on authentic relationships which bond them together.

2.2. Social atom Human society has an atomic structure and Moreno claimed that it is sociometry which discovered these microscopic formations of social fabric. The term “social atom” was coined to describe the smallest functional unit within a social group characterised by a pattern of attractions, repulsions and indifference relating its members to one another and the whole group. Every member of such a group is positively or negatively related to an indefinite number of co-members, who in turn may be related to him positively or negatively. There are also one-way relations observable in such groups – some members might be related to the central figure and unknown to him/her while he/she might be related to some members to whom he/she is unknown. Such total configuration comprises a social atom. Humans live and develop in social atoms from the very birth and the structures of relationships around them undergo expansions as we grow up. This close social context gives concrete meaning to life.

The concept of social atom is closely connected to that of cultural atom defined as a focal pattern of role-relations around an individual. The differentiation of this aspect results from the fact that each member of a group is the focus of numerous roles which are related to the roles of other members, just as he/she is a focus of attractions and repulsions. “Ego” or “self” which are a subject of psychological investigations emerge from the actual roles in which an individual operates. And roles and relationships among roles are characteristic of specific cultures, what explains the choice of the term. Still both the social and cultural atoms are manifestation of the same social reality of human interactions.

8

It is important to realise that social atom is different from an organisational or institutional unit such as family, work group or club. These are the visible divisions of society which are the subject of investigation in sociology, the macro-science of society. Sociometry goes deeper into the fabric of human relations and explores the “microscopic” threads which bond people together. Accordingly, when a sociometrist undertakes an analysis of a certain community, visible in a certain locality, with a certain physical geography, e.g. a town filled with schools, shops, etc., he examines the concrete position of every individual in this community with a nucleus of relations around them. This nucleus may be “thicker” around some individuals and “thinner” around others and consists of the currents of attractions and repulsions in different levels of intensity, with the “threads” of indifference of less significance (in practice Moreno focuses on the polarity of these emotional bonds). Such a nucleus of relations forms a social atom. Furthermore, certain “parts” of these atoms may be linked with other “parts” of social atoms and so on and thus form complex chains of interrelations in sociometric networks. Sociometric networks are in turn parts of a larger unit, a sociometric geography of a community, which finally form the largest configuration, the sociometric totality of human society.

“The responsible domain of social science requires expansion to include the immediate and practical structuring and guidance of present day human society on all its levels from the physical up to the societal plane. This job may have to begin by cleaning up our research shelves and laboratories, and concentrating all our efforts upon a few strategically selected points. The weakest spot in the armor of present day society and culture is its ignorance of its own social structure, especially of the small local structures in which people actually spend their lives. The time has come for sociometry to move from the “closed” into the “open” community. By means of practical, direct and immediate demonstrations of the usefulness of the sociometric methods faith in science can be regained and cemented. By such means can science be “saved” and put to full use. With the cooperation of “all” the people we should be able to create a social order worthy of the highest aspirations of our times. This is the meaning of revolutionary, dynamic sociometry.” (Who Shall Survive, p. 29) Moreno’s vision, revolutionary at that time, has proven to be a harbinger of our own times. For the last decades of the twentieth century the Western world has witnessed a disintegration of the traditional social fabric with the basic unit of “closed” family gradually replaced by “open” relations, freely formed according to the dynamic of mutual attractions and repulsions. The “techniques of freedom”, to borrow the Morenian term, are fully in use nowadays – divorce, gay marriages, gender manipulation as the most conspicuous cases of parting with traditional norms. An idea to value the hidden currents of emotions and “act them out” freely in one’s own life tends to be predominant in the Western culture and creates a fundamental shift with traditional societies (consider the clash with Christianity – both Catholic and Orthodox - or Islam).

A significant part of sociometry is devoted to a study of such invisible currents of feelings constituting the processes which attract individuals to one another or which repel them. Moreno coined a term to describe this phenomenon – tele (from Greek word meaning “distant”). It is best understood in relation to a better known concept of empathy, as an ability to “feel” the other at a distance, with a reservation that this is a two-way process, a continuum “in between” the people. Moreno claimed that there are 9

some real processes in one’s life situation which correspond to some real processes in another person’s life situation in various degrees of intensity and polarity (positive, negative or neutral) and they explain why some people immediately “click” with each other when they meet, get rejected or stay indifferent. Each social atom is composed of such numerous tele configurations, essentially it is a telic structure. Sociometry has a range of methods designed to explore this invisible, microscopic fabric of human relations. Before we present some of these techniques, a few words need to be said about the general nature of the sociometric experiment.

2.3. Science of action The sociometric experiment requires proper conditions under which significant facts of human relations emerge. Sociometry is a social science which investigates objects of different nature than physical sciences. In the case of the latter they include inanimate objects and non-human organisms which may be subject to observation, being external to the observer. In the case of the former, the observer is a part of the subject under scrutiny which thus cannot be fully externalised, examined from an outsider’s point of view. This results from the fundamental difference between the world of organisms and the world of human beings which should translate into different scientific methodologies: “How does a social experiment start? It does not start with organisms, behaviours and cathexis (psychoanalytic technical term); such is the view of observers and spectators.

It starts with “you” and “me”, with meetings and encounters, with actors and counter actors. It does not start with “he” and “she”, with “interpersonal relations” and the world of the “outsiders”. A science of action begins with two verbs, to be and to create, and with three nouns, actors, spontaneity and creativity.” (Who Shall Survive, p. 45 – 46) This statement makes Moreno’s method as revolutionary as its focus on the attractions and repulsions between individual people. Actually, the methodology is a logical corollary of the concept of the object under scrutiny. The internal “tellic” structure of a group is only in exceptionally cases visible on the surface of social interactions. In order to make it operationally visible the members of the group need to emerge here and now in their capacity as “actors” in an environment filled with action provoking situations. The actors must act as if they were engaged in real life situations, “act out” their relations with other actors on stage. Thus the stage becomes the proper experimental field when the performance of actors replaces the behaviour of individuals observed by an outsider. The sociometrist joins the experiment as one of the actors in situ. His role is to foster an environment in which the participants can spontaneously open up to others and disclose their feelings in an authentic way. In brief, the science of sociometry uses psychodrama as one of its essential techniques and it is exactly how the method is introduced in Moreno’s seminal treatise on sociometry.

The sociometric experiment develops in stages. It may begin with observational and interpretative stage at which it is possible to notice some regularity in groupings and attempt a provisional classification of the position of individuals in them. This is best done when members of the group are involved in spontaneous interactions, not aware of the “experiment” being carried out. However, the results of such observation are 10

usually superficial and provide only preliminary data for a proper sociometric exploration. At the next stage the sociometrist turns into a participant observer, entering the group and becoming a part of it. At this point the study becomes experiential as he can experience the polarity of relations among the members himself and register the group’s internal dynamics. This is a form of partnership with the group which leads to a refinement of the initial observations and a more accurate classification of the position of each individual in the group.

The key phase of the experiment which makes sociometry a unique method among the social sciences begins with the direct involvement of the group members, that is at the stage when diagnostic sociometry (the above stages) opens a way to dynamic sociometric procedures: “We cannot adequately comprehend the central direction of an individual in his development either through observation, for instance, a child, through watching its most spontaneous expression, its play life, or through partnership. We must make him an experimenter. Considering group formation, we must make the members of the prospective groups themselves the authors of the groups to which they belong.” (Who Shall Survive, p. 73) This passage gives a clue to sociometry as a “science of action”. Its ultimate aim is not theoretical knowledge of society viewed as an “object” of investigation. Such objectivity is hardly possible in Moreno’s view as we cannot adopt a position of an “objective” outsider. We can only get closer to the nature of human relations through acting them out with other co-actors in pursuit of goals which are motivating for the group being explored. This is best done through projects perceived by the participants as effectuating a change of the social organisation of which they are a part. An example from the educational context illustrates the approach very well: a sociometrist enters a classroom and presents his proposal to the students in the following way: “You are seated according to directions your teacher has given you. The neighbour who sits beside you is not chosen by you. You are now given the opportunity to choose the boy or girl whom you would like to be seated on either side of you. Write down who you would like first best; then, whom you would like second best. Look around and make up your mind. Remember that next term the friends you choose now may sit beside you.” (Who Shall Survive, p. 75) This is a basic example of a sociometric experiment but immediately the challenge of the method can be seen. What happens if the students take the invitation seriously and point out not only their friends but also the enemies? What if the “social atom” of a network of attractions and repulsions shows a nucleus of the class well integrated through reciprocal bonds with some students rejected or isolated in the group? There are serious ethical questions coming to mind when one considers such a procedure.

There are also practical issues – what next? Sociometry, in its foundations laid by Moreno, has optimistic answers to such dilemmas.

First there is a belief in the power of the group. The essential point of the experiment is to help the participants realise the common good in focus – we are doing this for the benefit of all, we are creating a new reality based on the authenticity of relations. “If the test procedure is identical with a life-goal of the subject he can never feel himself to 11

have been victimised or abused” (Who Shall Survive, p. 77). And the subject of the experiment is not an individual person but rather the whole group. The procedure must bring about an upheaval in the current grouping, it has a revolutionary nature, otherwise it would remain just a “harmless, poverty stricken instrument” (Who Shall Survive, p. 87).

Sociometry claims to be “social ethics par excellence”. Its fundamental principle is the truth of relations on which to base social order. In the sociometric experiment the participants are required to be truthful and spontaneous in choosing and rejecting their partner and expose themselves unselfishly. Perhaps the best known saying of the founder of sociometry is taken from this challenging part of his theory: “give truth and receive truth, give love to the group and it will return love to you, give spontaneity and spontaneity will return” (Who Shall Survive, p. 86).

The sociometrist is not an external observer like a sociologist, psychologist or psychoanalyst but rather a social leader able to foster all the above qualities in the group. The initial test needs to be followed by explorations of real life scenarios which could result in a better and more fruitful organisation. The school example is a “light” case as compared with explorations of more complex social structures, for example those in which intercultural tensions come to the fore in troubled communities. In both cases sociometry cannot be separated from the other “action” methods invented by Moreno – psychodrama for treating more personal issues and sociodrama for healing intergroup relations. In neither of these methods there are prescribed scenarios to follow. We will outline some of the techniques in the repertoire of the sociometrist in the next chapter, still it is his ability to warm the group up for action and move it in the right direction for the benefit of all which safeguards the experiment.

2.4. Sociometric methods and techniques There are a number of methods and techniques used by sociometrists to explore the area of human relations. The sociometric test and the sociogram are the most important as a two-cylinder “engine” of sociometry. Thus they need to be presented in more detail than the other methods.

The sociometric test This is the first step of investigations of the depth structure of a group in focus. It is an instrument designed to examine social structures through the measurement of attractions and repulsions among the members of the group, or to use terms better suited to interpersonal relations, choices and rejections among them. Accordingly, the test requires an individual to choose his associates in a group of which he or she is a member. The main objective of the test is to reveal the underlying psychological structure of the group and determine the position of each individual in it. The test can be applied to examination of different groups, e.g. households, work teams, school classes, etc.

12

The sociometric test touches on very sensitive psychological issues hence the group should be carefully prepared for it according to their maturity and disposition towards the test. Possible resistances should be realised and taken into account. They might refer to different factors such as ignorance of what sociometric procedure is about, fear of knowing one’s actual position in the group, social consequences of self-disclosure or fear of the others openly expressing their feelings and attitudes. Thus the group needs to be properly educated about the nature of the experiment and its potential benefits in terms of a better balanced organisation of the group and a better balanced situation of each of its members. The preparation for the test is thus essentially a warm-up process which must be tactfully conducted to involve all participants. Without a sufficient degree of sociometric consciousness and readiness of the group the whole procedure is likely to end up in total or partial failure (hurting some members of the group).

The testing is done on the basis of chosen sociometric criteria, understood as the common motives which draw individuals together spontaneously for a certain end.

Every particular group has a set of certain values or goals which hold it together, although this structure may not be visible on the surface of official, institutional settings.

The task of the sociometrist is to reveal this hidden structure through testing. This is best done through choosing a situation in which the participants are drawn to each other by one or more criteria and selecting a criterion to which they are likely to spontaneously respond, e.g. the one mentioned in the previous chapter: “whom would you like to sit with?”. The next requirement is that the participants must be properly motivated to give sincere responses like in the above example test which might result in a better organisation of the class. The motivation will be strengthened if the criterion is strong and definite and pointing to an enduring solution to a problem affecting the group here and now.

The test should ideally involve the participants in action towards a life-goal shared by the group. It is then likely to be perceived as an opportunity for them to become active agents in matters concerning their life situation. In some cases the experiment may take place directly in a real life environment. To use the school example again, the students may be encouraged to choose their desk companions as they wish through moving around and testing various sitting arrangements. In this situation it is important to remember that the final arrangement needs to benefit all, not only a leading minority of the class. However, the most common environment for the test is a psychodrama setting in which the participants can freely practice various choice/rejection scenarios without being punished for making mistakes. The stage is a form of a virtual reality where acts can be done and “undone” in a safe play environment. Nowadays sociometric tests are rarely conducted in real-life situations although the founder of sociometry was brave enough to experiment with his tools directly in whole communities (e.g. Hudson community or smaller agricultural and industrial cooperatives in the USA).

The potential benefits of the procedure are numerous. The test may reveal the underlying psychological structure of a group substantially differing from its external, visible manifestation. The use of different criteria with the same group may result in diverse groupings disclosing who prefers to associate with whom on various tasks and in various situations. The actual choices and rejections among participants may 13

document their willingness to group themselves differently from the official, imposed structure. Such divergence is usually an essential factor inhibiting team work and an awareness of it is the first step towards effective intervention. In this respect the sociometric test may become a valuable tool for educators who deal with group tensions and conflicts on a regular basis. It may - if conducted with sufficient knowledge and skill in using the instrument as well as sensitivity to subtle psychological factors at play here.

The sociogram The sociometric test generates complex data which needs to be represented in a visual schema to be meaningful. Moreno devised a process of charting such data in the form of a sociogram. He envisaged this instrument not only as a method of presentation of the fabric of interpersonal relations but also as a tool of exploration of sociometric facts.

A sociogram shows the position of each individual in a given group and all their interrelations. As such the scheme is a method of structural analysis of a community.

The charting makes some subtle relations among group members visible. The basic requirement for a sociogram is the accuracy of the depiction of the choice, rejection and neutrality structures in the group, although it may be further extended to include other emotional currents interconnecting with the attraction and repulsion patters.

Sociograms are devised in such a way as to enable the sociometrist to map an overall group structure but also to focus on specific relations among group members like under the microscope. Balancing both these aspects is a difficult task in view of the idiosyncratic nature of sociometry. In order to see this challenge we recommend consulting at least some of the original sociograms drawn by Moreno, available for free in the on-line version of Who Shall Survive, e.g. http://www.asgpp.org/docs/WSS/Map%20III/images/Map%20III%20%20999x739.jpg The symbols used in sociograms are influenced by the Greek mythology which accounted for the forces of attraction and repulsion among people through the figures of Eros (love), Anteros (mutual love) and Eris (discord). Accordingly, the red line with an arrow (recalling Eros shooting an arrow towards the chosen) stands for a one-way attraction and the red line with arrows on both sides stands for a mutual attraction.

Similarly, the black lines are pointed with one or two arrows at the end. Neutrality is represented by a lack of connection. The forms taken by the interrelation of individuals represent the structure of a group and the overall pattern of these structures stands for the group organisation. The following glossary explains the basic symbols used in sociograms.

Circle – woman Triangle – man Red line with two arrows – two individuals form a mutual attraction Red line with one arrow – one individual is attracted to another one without reciprocity Black line with two arrows – two individuals reject each other Black line with one arrow – one individual rejects another one without reciprocity 14

Incompatible pair – two individuals are not compatible, one sends a red line which is answered by a black line Red chain – two individuals are mutually attracted and one of them forms a mutual attraction with a third, the third forming a mutual attraction with a fourth, etc.

Black chain – two individuals reject each other and one of them forms a mutual rejection with a third, the third forming a mutual rejection with a fourth, etc.

Red triangle – three individuals compatible with each other Black triangle – three individuals incompatible with each other Red star – a few individuals are attracted to the same person Black star – a few individuals reject the same person Isolation – an individual is not chosen or rejected and does not choose or reject In order to make a meaningful sociogram with the use of the above symbols a criterion has to be defined according to which the people choose or reject each other. In the following sociogram the criterion is “with whom would you like to work on a project” and the graph represents a sample group’s preferences surveyed through a sociometric test. This is a sociogram drafted only for the instructional purposes.

RK

LW

VE

HS

LP

AP

SD

AP WI

The main benefit of such a visualisation lies in a clear grasp of the issues affecting the present group structure and dynamics in pursue of a specific goal, e.g. organising a better work and learning environment. The above sociogram shows the following issues to be taken into account in the case of the particular group presented: the number of isolated individuals – the larger the number, the lower the level of the group integration the number of mutual attractions - the larger the number, the higher the level of the group cohesion the number of repulsions – indicates the difficulty in creating a harmonious and motivated team Sociograms help to go further beyond generalities and focus on specific relations in the context of the structure of a specific group. Obviously, this is a situated procedure which requires the sociometrist to consider the whole interactional context in focus – the sociogram is only a tool for mapping the field of the explorations.

Other techniques 15

The other techniques have a supplementary character to the sociometric test and sociogram and have not been developed in so much detail. They have a more generic character and are not specific to sociometry, being known and used in other contexts.

The following presentation thus only outlines the main methods which contribute to the “mapping” of interpersonal relations and the positions of individuals in the group.

The acquaintance test measures the range of social contacts of an individual – the level of his/her social expansion. In the course of the sociometric procedure it may come before the sociometric test as providing initial information on the volume of their acquaintances from which each individual draws significant relations. The test can be carried out while investigating whole communities with the use of social survey tools (questionnaire, interview) and the data subjected to statistical analysis. The results usually document substantial variations in the number of acquaintances of the members of the community and thus provide first insights into the structure of the group to be investigated in more detail through the sociometric test.

The test of emotional expansiveness measures the emotional potential of an individual which translates into the ability to “hold” the affection of other people for a certain period of time. It goes deeper into the microscopic fabric of a group than the acquaintance test as not only the number of social contacts matter but also the depth and the intensity of the relations. The test shows that the position of an individual in a group is conditioned by the level of his emotional “energy” and people differ widely in this respect. In particular, the tool is an important diagnostic technique in analysing phenomena of social isolation, often caused by an inability to maintain a sufficient scope of significant relations.

The spontaneity and role-playing tests are closely related. The former rates the ability of an individual to respond to a previously known situation in a new way or to behave adequately in a novel situation. Such testing is usually done by sociometrists in the psychodrama environment when enacting situations on stage is an essential part of the method. The role test measures the ability of an individual to perform different societal roles. For an integrated personality a certain role repertoire is needed, in the sense of a set of roles which can be played adequately without a discord. However, some of the roles an individual may play are underdeveloped thus limiting the realisation of his/her potential and some may be overdeveloped or conflicted. The role-playing test is a diagnostic tool which rates the range of roles performed by an individual. The psychodrama stage offers a setting in which to recreate concrete situations in which specific roles are played and replay them with a view to gaining an insight into the patterns of behaviour. This further leads to elaborating more adequate responses to life challenges as well as more fruitful social interactions. Sociometry is a science of action – not an analysis for its own sake.

All the above methods and techniques were devised in a nutshell by Moreno and presented in his opus magnum Who Shall Survive. Since then many modifications have been introduced by his followers in the process of adapting the methods to different scientific, therapeutic and educational purposes. This outline cannot give a full account of all these developments. Nevertheless, in the following chapter we will 16

present some current issues being debated with a view to sensitizing VET adult educators both to the potential of the method in facilitating group work and possible harms which can be posed by its irresponsible use.

2.5. Current issues debated Sociometry overlaps with many current fields of psychological and sociological investigations and although Moreno’s input is not always acknowledged, the influence of his method can be seen in the following areas: developmental psychology in its analysis of the impact of being accepted or rejected on personality study of temperament and personality types, especially the phenomena of introversion and extraversion social psychology in its multifaceted investigation of how people behave in the presence of others interpersonal and intercultural communication theory which deals with the complexity of relations between people in various social interactional contexts management theory which seeks ways to foster effective group work environment taking into account interpersonal issues at play group psychotherapy in its various forms and types which base the interventions on the impact of the group on the individual and vice versa pedagogy which, irrespective of the age group of learners in focus, is concerned with the social dimension of learning and teaching The dynamics explored by sociometry are relevant for all the above fields, still the method shows its limitations in the original version proposed by Moreno. Some of the main points being debated relate to the following aspects of the approach.

Sociometry tends to focus exclusively on the patterns of interpersonal preferences within groups. However, the group phenomena involve many other factors which are beyond the narrow scope of sociometry. Even if the sociometric test includes many different criteria according to which people get attracted to each other or reject each other the results by no means approximate the complexity of human relations. Even a brief survey of the emotional “vocabulary” of humankind - consider the emotions hidden under the labels of love, hatred, sympathy, contempt, disregard, admiration, disdain, lust, disgust – show the incompatibility of the sociometric measuring tools with the actual richness of interpersonal relations. Can they be charted like a railway network map with lines, arrows, circles, squares, etc? Can all the shades of emotions be reduced to the feelings of attractions and repulsions between people? Is the even most detailed sociogram not just a gross simplification of the matter? Such issues need to be taken into account before we embark on a sociometric experiment. We are certainly dealing with a valid issue which would be acknowledged by every educator: some people in the class, including the teacher, “click” with each other while some others repel each other and some just feel indifferent. How to understand this dynamic? What diagnostic tools do we have? How to engage with these phenomena? Sociometry is one of very few systematic attempts to explore this field. As such it is, irrespective of its

17

shortcomings, of interest to all those who seek ways to better understand and improve their working group environment.

In the areas of actual implementations of sociometric methods, there is the sensitivity of the issues to be disclosed and the resulting emotional harm on the participants at stake. Even if we acknowledge the fact that the dimension of attractions and repulsions between people is a key factor at play in any group, the question is how to deal with the consequences of their disclosure. A group may have “stars”, the focal personalities being the objects of attractions in the group, and individuals on the outskirts being rejected by the majority for various reasons (e.g. status, character, culture, appearance, etc). Publicizing these emotional currents in a form of a chart for everyone to see and work on may look a weird and risky course of action. It undermines the complex social mechanisms which are present in each culture and maintain a certain balance between the open and the hidden. Approaching the point in Moreno’s own terms we can say that life is a theatre and the façade is its inherent element. If we tear it down what remains may present a rather disappointing view. The façade in human interactions masks deficiencies and helps real life actors hide behind. Is the quest for authenticity in social life a valid case then? What sociometry proposes in its removal of masks is the demolishing of the real life stage. An interesting development, in view of the fact that sociometrists are advocates of the artificial stage of psychodrama on which to train people for real life performance. Still this seems a consistent corollary as the sociometric experiment is hardly possible in other settings.

To embark on the procedure the leader needs not only the mastery of the sociometric tools (choice of appropriate criteria, tests, drafting of sociograms) but also the ability to manage the developments in the group following the disclosure of its inherent patterns of attractions and repulsions. There is no published methodology on how to proceed: all depends on the particular group structure and dynamic which excludes any prescribed course of action. Sociometrists, who nowadays mainly belong to the psychodrama community, are required to take long-term training before they are able to use the method in practice. The training is provided as part of psychodrama qualifications hence the expert knowledge of the method remains within the confines of psychodrama.

However, Moreno’s insights into the operations of “tele” in groups and his attempts to systematically explore these interrelations open a way for a less dogmatic approach than the qualification framework set by the psychodrama institutes. The most comprehensive survey of these developments is available through the portal run by Adam Blatner (blatner.com), which inspired the reflections in this chapter. Sociometry is seen as entering the gap rarely explored between the depth psychology and social psychology and proposing essential questions which need to be acted upon in practical interventions when the group dynamic has to be improved. In this context, sociometric exercises are taken not so much as a scientific procedure of investigating group structures but rather as powerful catalysers of discussion of the way an individual functions in a group: Are you aware of the way people look at you? Why are you chosen by some and rejected by others? What are you actually chosen for and what would like to be chosen for? How can you better present yourself to attract people who interest you? These are just sample questions which might be explored on the basis of 18

insights gained through sociometric activities but they illustrate the current shift from the original Morenian “science” of sociometry to a more modest approach which uses some of the techniques to foster self-knowledge and more fruitful social interactions.

This is sociometry in a nutshell as practiced today – a supplementary tool in various interventions aimed at cohesive group building.

Remember Sociometry overlaps with many fields of psychology and sociology and is nowadays referred to as a rich resource of ideas and methods on how to deal with group dynamics in various educational, training and therapeutic contexts.

3. Introduction to exercises The exercises in this module have been chosen in such a way as to give a taste of sociometry in its practical applications in the context of adult education. The other consideration taken into account in the choice and flow of the exercises relates to the structure of a typical psychodrama session: it is a three-phase process, beginning with warm-up, gradually involving the group in action and closing with so called sharing session. The exercises in this module follow this scenario and start with “lighter” activities, then proceed to more demanding ones and finally encourage reflection on the experience. In doing so, we are following the basic principle of psychodrama which is a form of experiential learning. The third factor taken into account in planning the activities in this module relates to the preparatory research completed before the work on the PaTiE curriculum and training materials. We have identified a number of essential skills and competences of VET adult educators which could be enhanced through practical acquaintance with sociometry. The choice reflects these direct needs with a view to: helping the educator to be a team player involving the learners, encouraging them to participate in shared tasks creating an atmosphere of cooperation and trust in the group developing awareness of the students' real preferences fostering cohesion in the classroom The presentation draws on examples of concrete exercises and techniques which proved successful in educational contexts. Some of them have been designed and tested in the framework of the POTENS project which provided a background against which to develop the PaTiE resources. Some others have been developed from the resource of activities widely practiced by sociometrists in psychodrama training. They can be used in the VET adult education if the context of training and the purpose of the class/subject makes it meaningful to apply such exercises. This is a very important consideration which always needs to be taken into account when working with sociometric methods. They must have a well thought purpose and cannot be just taken as ready tools on hand. They cannot be separated from the group process, which is unique due to the emotional and intellectual make-up of the participants and the specific themes in focus of the group work.

19

The example activities featured in this module illustrate the specificity of the method and focus on: revealing connections among the people who form a team showing the complexity and multidimensionality of common group relations facilitating group decisions, useful in situations in which learners during classes come up with different ideas as how to proceed

All the exercises can be adapted to concrete educational work. If so, it is necessary to pay particular attention to the purpose of their use and concrete challenges to be addressed by applying them. A certain degree of creativity and flexibility is essential for an effective use of the techniques. The following outlines should thus be seen as suggestions of how to proceed rather than prescribed steps to follow.

Remember Sociometric exercise may have powerful impact on the group as a whole and its individual members. Thus they should always be used with sensitivity and caution in order not to harm the participants.

3.1. Warm-up The principle of warm-up applies to all psychodrama sessions irrespective of the particular themes to be explored. In the case of a workshop focused on sociometric activities an appropriate warm-up of the participants is an essential requirement for success. The beginning of group work is of great importance in psychodrama and various approaches are used to ensure motivation and an active involvement of the members. The most important function of warm-up is to stimulate the group abilities and to prepare them for getting deeper into the themes to be explored. Warm-up activities also have an important diagnostic purpose as allowing the trainer to obtain some valuable information on the group dynamics and structure. Ideally, the exercises should have a lively, playful character raising the spontaneity level of the group and thus fostering a conducive atmosphere for creative responses to the themes in focus of the session. Elements of surprise and novelty are important factors in this respect. A well-planned and conducted warm-up helps the participants overcome shyness and fear which are the most common obstacles to engagement and thus the key resistance factors in group work. Warm-up exercises introduced in an artificial way, without clear awareness of the group dynamics, may have the opposite impact and actual “freeze� the group who may perceive this form of introduction as weird, inadequate or inappropriate in the particular context.

The above considerations derived from the psychodrama practice apply equally to the context of education. The decisive issue is an awareness of the here and now of the group, a clear purpose behind the proposed activities and the ability to use the feedback from the group for adjusting the course of action.

20

DIVIDING LINE The main purpose of this exercise is to visualise – “chart” different preferences as to group work styles. As usual in psychodrama work, the warm-up exercise should also have the capacity to energise the group for further action and challenge them with an activity requiring a spontaneous response.

The exercise can be run with a group who meet for the first time as well as with participants who have already met but are now encouraged to survey their attitudes to certain issues coming to the fore in the course of group work. The activity will generate some movement in the classroom so enough space should be available for the participants to move freely. The exercise can take more or less time depending on the number of participants and the level of investigations. However, if the exercise has the function of a warm-up it should not take longer than 15 minutes, unless the group and the leader are willing to continue the activity beyond this initial stage of the workshop.

The trainer needs to explain the task first: “let us survey our perceptions of the optimal style of group work. Some people might like strong leadership environment in which there is a clear framework of rules, tasks and obligations set and monitored by the leader, while some others might rather appreciate working in a collaborative space in which all the above are negotiated in a shared effort. Before we start “charting” our attitudes let us recall examples of such different styles from our own experience. Walk around or sit to reflect on your experience while the room is being arranged for the following activity”.

While the students are reflecting, the trainer divides the workshop room with a line made of scarves to separate the two group work styles. One area is marked with green and red scarves depicting the YES/NO approach while the other is covered with colourful ones scattered around in a more chaotic order. The symbolism of the arrangement should be clear enough for the participants to immediately grasp the division between a strict, ordered approach versus a collaborative, more flexible style of team work. The whole preparatory phase of the exercise should not take longer than five minutes.

Once the room is arranged the participants are encouraged to walk to either of the two sides and choose a place on the floor closer or further from the line to express the degree of their acceptance of the particular group work style. Most likely the room will be populated in an uneven way, possibly with some participants standing close to each other with some others at distant positions. The division may be unbalanced with few participants on one side, and many more on the other. All these patterns are meaningful and give both the trainer and the participants valuable insights to work on in the following parts of the session.

The exercise introduces the group to sociometry in its function of charting attitudes in the group. If there is enough time and possibility to continue the activity beyond the warm-up stage, the positions the students have taken on the floor can be represented on a graph and provide a basis for a discussion of the optimal balance between

leadership and collaboration in team work. Preferably the chart should be interactive (use of digital media) so that further criteria could be introduced and the respective positions of the participants fine-tuned. This is a “light” introduction to sociometric tests as the issue of mutual attractions and repulsions within the group is touched in this activity. Still the concept of “mapping” and measuring attitudes so characteristic of sociometry should be grasped by the students at this stage of the workshop.

It is not recommended to introduce sociometry in the context of education through directly addressing the patters of choices and rejections among the students Sociometric techniques can be adapted to visualising various other relations and attitudes The function of warm-up is to gradually enter the field of explorations

In the framework of the PaTiE course the exercise can open a way for a discussion of the value of disclosing and visualising patters attitudes in group work in the context of VET adult education. The following points can be raised as opening the key themes of interest to educators: What is the added value of charting attitudes as compared with mere discussion?

How to relate sociometric activities to the subject of the class and the dynamics of the group?

How to deal with resistance which might occur if the participants cannot fully grasp the meaning and purpose of such exercises?

3.2. Action Sociometry openly deals with very sensitive aspects of interpersonal relations which cannot be fully addressed in classroom group work, unless the educator has strong background in sociometry and the framework of the programme allows for such explorations. However, there is a wealth of sociometric approaches and techniques used in psychodrama which can be applied in education as well. The following choice of exercises should be seen as a set of example activities which also fit educational contexts, if used with reason and caution. They have been ordered in such a way as to illustrate the essential aspects of sociometry as practiced today.

22

SOCIAL ATOM This exercise is a different version of the activity presented in the introductory module.

For those who participated in the first session it gives an occasion to revisit the concept of drawing social atoms; for those who joined the course later it will introduce a key concept and technique used by sociometrists.

The activity can be run with basic equipment and resources available in the classroom: a whiteboard, a flipchart or a projector and medium size sheets of paper for the participants’ drawings. The activity may last up to two hours depending on the size of the group and the time available. It can be introduced at the stage when the trainer feels that the group needs reorganisation of its sub-teams who are assigned with specific tasks. An active and open involvement of all the members is needed as well as some acquaintance with each other hence the exercise best fits an advanced phase of group work.

First, the code of sociometric symbols needs to be explained by drawing them on the board or visualised in another way. The following list covers the very basic symbols but it can be extended with those explained in the theoretical part of the module.

Circle – female Triangle – male Solid line – firm and stable relation Dotted line – problematic and variable relation Arrow – attitude, one-sided relation or mutual Once the symbols are presented and their basic meaning understood the trainer needs to propose a criterion against which the members of the group choose each other, reject or stay neutral. The criterion should be chosen with caution in order not to enter a very risky ground of sensitive personal issues. Such a criterion might be: “who would you like to work with on a collaborative project” (the content of the project to be specified in relation to the particular field of training in which the group is involved).

Each participant is then requested to draw a social atom on a separate sheet of paper placing the symbol of himself/herself in the middle and marking the other people on the drawing by connecting them with lines and writing down their names or initials. It is important that each chart includes all or most of the participants (possible in the case of workshop groups around 10 – 15 members). Some people on the graphs might stay “unconnected” while some others might be positioned in a complex network of relations.

After the individual work is done, the presentation of particular diagrams and group discussion takes place. The sociograms present subjective perceptions of the group composition and the key point of the exercise is a confrontation of these perceptions.

This part of the task may start with a brief exposition of all the drawings - placed on chairs or on the floor, so that all of the participants may see all of the graphs. However, the charts can be discussed in more depth only in smaller groups or in pairs unless the 23

whole activity can be extended to a full workshop. Still even a small scale confrontation of the drawings is significant and may lead to a reconsideration of one’s own status in the group and the others’ positions. The participants may ask questions, point at the elements of the drawing and explain their meaning, discover many things which the author himself could not see, even though they were present in his/her work. The feedback from the group helps in better understanding one's own relations with other people featured in the social atoms. The exercise is a powerful tool in fostering selfawareness in social interactions.

Social atom makes the participants aware of their position in the complex network of relations among the group It can provide a basis for improving these relations and motivation to work in the team

In the framework of the PaTiE course the exercise can be taken as an opportunity to introduce the key concept of sociometry and give the participating educators a chance to raise issues regarding the applicability of the technique in the context of VET adult education. In particular, the following questions can be discussed: How to choose appropriate sociometric criteria for such work?

What requirements are essential for the social atoms to express real attitudes of the participants?

What follow-up activities to plan to capitalise on the insights gained by the participants?

WHAT TO CHOOSE The basic sociometric choices explored in length by Moreno refer to the attraction, repulsion and neutrality patters. It is however worth sensitizing educators to the fact that group work is likely to generate a more complex set of attitudes to any issue in focus. This exercise has the purpose to present an approach disclosing such complex attitudes as a positive choice, negative choice, neutral choice, conflicted choice and the “choose not to choose” options which are all likely to surface in a situation in which people are asked about their preferences.

The exercise should be run with a group who know each other and are comfortable to explore contentious issues together. The activity needs sufficient space in the room so that the choice patterns can be depicted on the floor which will require the participants to move freely around the room. Depending on the number of participants and the level of investigations the exercise can take more or less time (1 to 2 hours).

The activity needs preparation in terms of arranging the group space. Colourful scarves can be used to map an irregular shape on the floor depicting the irregularity of human 24

attitudes and preferences. The figure should be large enough for all group members to stand inside. The inside of the figure is arranged as follows. A central point is marked to represent the neutral position by the shape of 0. On both sides of the 0 position there are areas marked for the positive (+) and negative preference (-). At a certain distance from this polarity of attitudes there are two areas marked for the conflicting stance (+/-) and another one for the “chose not to chose” position (?). This “map” on the floor is to be used for active exploration of polarities and ambivalence in choice situations against various criteria. At the initial stage of the exercise the group needs to understand the meaning of the symbols on the floor before engaging in the activity.

As in all sociometric exercises the choice of issues to be explored is essential for the activity to be meaningful. The trainer needs to prepare one or various questions in advance to which the group members can respond by taking a position on the floor.

The questions must relate to the particular phase of the group process and thus cannot be proposed without knowing the specific context of work. An example can illustrate the procedure. Let us imagine that the trainer wants to involve the group in choosing an appropriate place for a study visit. Possible options should be presented and discussed with the group first. At the decision making point the leader needs to formulate a clear question, e.g. “Would you like to go to workshop X for the study visit?” and then ask the group members to choose the positions on the floor which best express their preferences. The map of preferences is likely to depict the pattern of choices in the group, showing not only the clear YES/NO answers but also conflicting stances in which some members see both pros and cons of the choice while some others choose not to choose anything. The visualisation of the preferences should give all an insight into the factors affecting the group decision making and facilitate a fair choice respecting the attitudes of all the members of the group. Obviously, the final decision will be made through a follow-up discussion and possible regrouping on the floor when the participants become aware of the factors influencing the group decision making.

Moreno explored mainly the attraction, repulsion and neutrality patters in his writings.

Group work may generate a more complex picture also disclosing conflicted choices and the “choose not to choose” options.

It is worth having action techniques at hand to visualise participants’ preferences to better manage group processes.

In closing the session of the PaTiE course for adult VET educators the group may hold a discussion on the “mapping” of attitudes and preferences in classroom work. The following points could be raised as potentially interesting to educators: What did you notice about the ease or difficulty in “locating” your response?

What is the advantage of the exercise over mere discussion followed by voting?

How could you track the group members’ responses throughout the use of the technique in your classes to gain an insight into the dynamics at play?

25

SYNERGIES Group work always involves the challenge of engaging various skills of the participants and their personal preferences to cooperate with each other. The task of the leader is to increase the opportunities for all members to participate and play a role in the team.

This is usually best done through dividing the group into smaller, more contained units and synergising their potential. The challenge is particularly visible in educational contexts where the teachers often have to work with large classes and need to master the skill of efficient sub-grouping. This exercise uses sociometry to facilitate the process of dividing the group into smaller teams based on the actual preferences of the members.

The exercise can be introduced at the beginning of group work and then repeated if there is a need for reorganising the team. The advantage of the activity is that no special space or props are needed to run it so the technique can be easily introduced in regular classroom work. Depending on the number of participants and the criteria chosen for building the sub-teams the exercise can take more or less time (around 1 hour being the optimal time).

The preparation for the activity mainly consists in a careful consideration of the criteria to be taken into account while forming the sub-groups. Choosing only one criterion is not recommended as it may distort the actual picture of preferences within the group.

We usually chose a person for a certain criterion but reject the same individual for another. One criterion may also result in some people being rejected and left alone with nobody choosing them to work with. It is more likely that such situation will not occur if the members of sub-teams are chosen on the basis of complementary criteria, synergising their potential. The selection of appropriate criteria is obviously set in a particular context and cannot be advised without knowing the specific group and its tasks. The following are a set of example criteria: Whom do you choose, not choose or are neutral to working with on a project?

In order to ensure a sufficient level of competences, whom do you choose to be in your project group?

In order to ensure a timely delivery of results, whom do you choose to be in your project group?

In order to maintain a friendly atmosphere, whom do you choose to be in your project group?

Once the criteria are selected the members of the group are requested to write their choices on a data sheet prepared by the leader in advance. Against each criterion the names of the selected people are given, divided into those chosen, not chosen and those neither chosen nor rejected (neutral). Again it should be stressed that there is always a danger that some individuals might be rejected by all or the overwhelming majority of the group and the leader needs to have strategies in place to deal with such a situation. A careful selection of criteria as not to touch on deep personal issues is a basic requirement for the use of the technique in educational contexts. A consideration should also be made whether the data are to be disclosed to the whole group. There is a possibility of keeping the findings confidential; in this case only the leader gains an 26

insight into the layer of preferences among the group which may help him/her better manage collaborative processes in the group.

To conclude the whole process the formation of sub-groups can be depicted in a psychodramatic fashion. The participants form smaller circles according to their choices and place a hand on the shoulder of the person chosen to work with. The feeling of extended arms in small human compounds conveys the meaning of synergies in the whole group ready for taking up a collaborative task.

Group work involves the challenge of engaging various skills of the participants and their personal preferences to cooperate with each other.

Sociometry may facilitate the task of dividing the group into smaller teams based on the actual preferences of the members and thus synergizing the process of collaborative work.

The exercise is another excellent opportunity to raise the issue of potential benefits as well as risks of using sociometry in educational contexts. In closing the session of the PaTiE course for adult VET educators the group should be encouraged to discuss the following points: How to choose relevant sociometric criteria for sub-grouping the class?

Which of the proposed criteria are potentially risky as opening personal issues not to be dealt with in class?

What are possible scenarios of dealing with overwhelming rejection of certain individuals by the group?

TRIANGLE OF CONFLICT Group work is prone to internal conflicts and educators need to have strategies in place to handle them. Sociometry may provide some tools to deal with situations in which there is a need to make hidden tensions surface in order to face and resolve them. The proposed activity can be particularly useful in a situation when the conflict involves a smaller group of participants but the tensions impact on the performance of the whole team. Then the leader needs to be able to involve the whole group in the process of resolving the conflict. This is the purpose of the exercise which draws both on the diagnostic potential of sociometry and the experiential power of psychodrama.

The activity has its natural place in the middle of group process when there is a need to openly face tensions and conflicts accumulated in the group. The leader must be aware of such conflicts affecting the group and should not propose the activity unless there is a specific need for it. Otherwise the exercise can foster conflicting attitudes instead of resolving them. No special space or props are needed but the room should be large 27

enough to build a “triangle” on the floor with all the participants standing on its sides.

Depending on the number of members of the group and the complexity of the conflict the exercise can take up to two hours.

The leader should first identify the conflict through an open group discussion. It is essential to delineate the tension in order to deal with it. Accordingly, just like in the case of defining sociometric criteria, the issue should be expressed in a clear statement, understandable to all the members. It can be formulated either by one of the participants and further specified through group discussion, or reported by the leader and then concretised on the basis of group feedback. It is also worth agreeing on the pre-requisites for group work on conflict in terms of norms (e.g. ways of addressing one another, listening to one another, etc), confidentiality and trust. It always helps to have in mind the worst case scenarios which the activity may follow in order to be able to deal with potential risks and harms.

When an issue of concern is picked up by the group a large triangle is marked on the floor with colourful scarves. The green side represents a positive standpoint, the red side a negative one, and the blue side a neutral attitude. Then the members of the group walk around considering their standpoints and take the relevant sides on the triangle. While still standing, they should discuss their views in the three sub-groups which emerged on the sides of the triangle. At best, each team should agree on a common argumentation to face the opposite sides in the following discussion. This is the next phase of the activity in which all the participants sit on the floor along the three sides of the triangle. The sitting position makes it easier to pacify the emotions which might have accumulated in the group around the issue in focus. The presence of the neutral side, which is likely to emerge in such debates, has also the potential to moderate the opposing views and facilitate a common agreement on how to resolve the conflict. This final achievement, if effectuated through the activity, can be depicted on the floor by transforming the triangle into a colourful circle of intertwined green, red and blue scarves with the group standing around and embracing each other.

The concluding “shape” of the activity obviously depends on the extent to which the conflict has been resolved, moderated or left for further work. The scarves on the floor can be rearranged in various ways to depict the complexity of the issue. It is however advisable to conclude the activity with a shape best reflecting the results of work so far and resume it, if needed, in the following sessions.

Group work is prone to internal conflicts and educators need to have strategies to handle them.

Sociometry provides tools to make hidden tensions surface in order to face and resolve them.

They add value to mere discussion or debate through action and visualisation of the tensions.

28

The exercise opens a way for discussing sociometry not only as a resource of diagnostic tools but also as supporting conflict management. In closing the session of the PaTiE course for VET adult educators the group should be encouraged to discuss the following points: Is it essential to disclose hidden tensions and conflicts to improve group dynamics?

When should such disclosure be avoided?

What activities need to follow a sociometric visualisation of cracks in the group structure?

3.3. Closure Sharing is an essential part of the psychodrama session. It gives each participant an opportunity to give his/her feedback to the group on the learning experience. This closing part of the workshop should be connected here with processing the value of the introduced knowledge and techniques in VET. The recommended procedures should make use of sociometry to give the participants more insights into its possible applications. Sharing by its very nature is a spontaneous activity which cannot be “managed” but should rather be facilitated by the trainer on the basis of his/her grasp of the group dynamics and surfacing issues. The flow of activities can thus only be suggested.

MAP The purpose of the exercise is to “chart” the results of a session in terms of the benefits gained by the participants. The map technique serves here as a tool to concretize various perceptions of these benefits in the group through a spatial visualization. This is a free adaptation of sociometry which focuses on measuring relations between people against a set of specific criteria. In this case the objective is not so much to delineate interpersonal relationships but rather show how individual members of the group relate to specific reference points, in this case benefits of a learning process. Still the essential elements of sociometric procedure are visible in the activity as the final map discloses not only “clusters” of people around concrete criteria (identified benefits) but also their proximity or distance from each other.

The technique is particularly valuable as facilitating a closure of a group process through sharing views of the participants on the value of the learning experience. The focus on benefits has the potential to highlight its positive sides but the leader should also be aware of the possibility of negative aspects surfacing and allow the participants to report them. Otherwise the exercise may be seen as a manipulative technique to boost achievements at the expense of an accurate overview of the learning outcomes.

The room should be large enough for the “charting” as in the case of most of the other exercises presented in this module of the PaTiE course. Depending on the number of members of the group and the benefits to be explored the exercise can take 1 – 2 hours.

29

The activity begins with gathering participants in a circle and initiating an open sharing of feelings and insights resulting from the session. The discussion should focus on concrete competences, skills or knowledge the participants have derived from the learning process. It is important to elicit various aspects of the benefits as it is only in very rare cases that the learning is one-dimensional, it usually impacts on the learner in many different ways. Once the group has surveyed all the aspects of the learning experience in terms of the gained competences, skills or knowledge the leader should hand out pieces of colorful tape to all participants: each person is getting the same number of pieces representing various benefits identified in the group discussion. Then a “map” is created on the floor by the participants, each marking a point in the sharing circle with a composition reflecting his/her individual benefits. Similar patterns should be placed close to each other and non-compatible ones at distant locations. The “charting” should be done consecutively by the participants. When one person marks a point on the floor the following learner has a reference point to which relate his contribution, and so on. The final result is likely to present a colorful picture with some condensed areas and some isolated islands. The map can be taken as a visual closure of the session or, if time allows, as groundwork for more focused discussion.

Spatial visualisation of perceptions coming up in the course of a group learning process is a valuable method of sharing views.

Sociometry is a rich resource of techniques which can facilitate “mapping” of various perceptions, attitudes, etc.

In closing the session of the PaTiE course for VET adult educators the group should be encouraged to discuss the following points: Why is it important to concretise the benefits of a learning process at the closure of a session?

What is the added value of “mapping” such benefits as compared with a summary by the leader?

How can the information gained through the exercise be used for further work?

30

4. Evaluation The workshop is planned in such a way as to give both the trainer and the participants a clear indication of the level of attainment of the intended learning outcomes. Each activity introducing a specific technique/exercise is closed by a set of questions which should lead to a discussion involving all the participants and reflecting the level of understanding of the key concepts in focus. The assessment methods should be adjusted to the content of the sharing/processing phase: The participants’ knowledge and understanding of principles of sociometry and its applicability in VET is best checked in the discussion round. The discussion should cover a range of concrete proposals coming from the group on how to use the techniques with adult learners and for what purposes. Arguments for and against such uses will help the trainer to grasp the level of understanding of the method among the group.

The trainer can present a particular case of a group conflict and encourage the participants to come up with proposals on how to “map” the relations in the group which impact on its resolution. The exercise is best done in sub-groups and the results will provide a further indication of the participants’ practical understanding of the methodology and their ability to come up with creative solutions/adaptations of techniques learned at the workshop.

The limited time of the session makes it necessary to plan follow-up assessment activities. If the participants are not coming to the next modules of the course the trainer should encourage them to give feedback on their own implementations of the methodology via e-mail/blog/forum. It is recommended to collect feedback through a template requiring the participants to report on their target group, the issues addressed through sociometric techniques, the insights gained and the group’s response to the activity.

The trainer needs to have his/her own reporting template to record the assessment results of the module. It should be filled in after the workshop and included in the course documentation. The following sets of questions should be seen as suggestions how to proceed, not as a prescribed evaluation scenario which cannot be designed without the knowledge of the particular teaching/training context.

Self-questionnaire for the instructor Have I achieved the learning outcomes proposed for this module?

Have I noticed a change in the participants’ perception of group work?

How have the exercises and activities been received and performed?

Questionnaire for the course participants: To what extent does the knowledge of sociometry influence my perception of group work and educational practice?

Do I view the situation in my adult class differently now?

31

Can I see feasible ways of integrating the presented activities and techniques in VET adult education?

Am I clear about further steps I need to take to plan/modify my curricula and better focus on relations in the group?

32

5. Bibliography 5.1. References in English Blatner, Adam. (1994). Tele: The dynamics of interpersonal preference. In P. Holmes, M. Karp, & M. Watson (Eds.), Psychodrama since Moreno. London: Tavistock/Routledge.

Blatner, A. (2000). Sociometry: (Chapter 18: General considerations; Chapter 19: Methods) and related chapters on role theory in: Foundations of Psychodrama: History, Theory & Practice (4th ed.): New York: Springer.

Blatner, A. (July, 2010). The dynamics of rapport: theoretical underpinnings fostering the elements in group psychotherapy (Part 1). In The Group Psychologist, Volume 20, No. 2., pp 9-11.

Carlson-Sabelli, Linnea; Sabelli, Hector C. & Hale, Ann E. (1994). Sociometry and sociodynamics. In: P. Holmes; M. Karp & M. Watson, (Eds). Psychodrama Since Moreno: innovations in theory and practice, London: Routledge.

Casson, John. (2001b). The social role and cultural atoms. The British Journal of Psychodrama & Sociometry, 16, 15-22.

Dayton, Tian. (2004). The Living Stage : a step-by-step guide to psychodrama, sociometry and group psychotherapy. Deerfield Park, FL: HCI. Hale, A. E. (2009). Moreno's sociometry: exploring interpersonal connection.

Group: the journal of the Eastern Group Psychotherapy Society, 33, (4), 347-358.

Holmes, P., Karp, M. and Tauron, K. B. (eds.) (1998). The Handbook of Psychodrama, London: Routlege Horvatin, T. & Schreiber, E. (Eds.). (2006). The Quintessential Zerka: Writings by Zerka Toeman Moreno on Psychodrama, Sociometry and Group Psychotherapy.

London: Routledge.

Howie, P. (2010). Using sociodrama and sociometry to create group environments.

The Group Psychologist (the online journal of the Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy---a newsletter of Division 49 of the American Psychological Association), 20, 2, pp. 11-14.

Hollander, Carl E. (1978). Psychodrama, role playing and sociometry: Living and learning processes. In: D. Kurpius, (Ed). Learning: Making learning environments more effective. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.

Hollander, Carl E. (1978). An introduction to sociogram construction. Denver: Snow Lion Press.

Jones, Diana. (2001). Sociometry in team and organisational development. The British Journal of Psychodrama & Sociodrama. 16, 69-78.

Kuethe, J.L. (1975). Mapping into a structure: a method for studying social cognition (Psychological Reports, 37, 1279-1283.

Miller, C. (2013). Who's Calling? Cell Phone Sociometry. Journal of Psychodrama, Sociometry, and Group Psychotherapy, 61 (1), 73-76.

McKimmie, Peter. (1999). Building a student support system using sociometry.

Australian & New Zealand Psychodrama Association Journal, 8, 39-42.

Moreno, J. L. (1953b). Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama (2nd ed.). Beacon, NY: Beacon House. (Revised and expanded version of 1934 1st ed.)

33

Moreno, Zerka T. (1987). Psychodrama, role theory and the concept of the social atom. In: J. K. Zeig, (Ed). The Evolution of Psychotherapy. New York: Brunner Mazel. (1989). Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 42, 178-186.

Remer, Rory. (1995). Using strong sociometry as an interpersonal feedback tool.

Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 48 (2), 69-83.

Treadwell, T., Stein, S. & Leach, E. (1989). The Social Atom Test Revised.

International Journal of Small Group Research, 5. (1), 47-63.

Treadwell, T., & Collins, L. (1992). The Moreno Social Atom Test -R- Brief Report.

Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama, and Sociometry, 45 (3.) 122-124.

Treadwell, T., Stein,S., & Leach E. (1993). The Social Networks Inventory: a diagnostic instrument measuring interpersonal relationships. Journal of Small Group Research, 24 (2), 155-178.

Zachariha, M. & Moreno, R. (2006). Finding My Place: The Use of Sociometric Choice and Sociodrama for Building Community in the School Classroom. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry 58 (4), 157-167.

34