Posts

Being, Engaging, Contextualizing and Managing Matrix — a Means for Nonspecialists to Assess Group Dynamics? Embedding Technology in Practice

Abstract:

Being, Engaging, Contextualizing and Managing Matrix — a Means for Nonspecialists to Assess Group Dynamics? Embedding Technology in Practice Simon BellIn April 1999, academics from the Systems Department at the Open University in UK devised a matrix for assessing third‐level systems students—the matrix was based upon systemic practitioner behaviours taught in the course. It was based upon earlier methods that sought to understand and assess student progress based upon evidence of changing behavioural traits rather than the expression of learned responses or ‘right’ answers. This was the beginning of the being, engaging, contextualizing and managing (BECM) matrix. The European Union‐funded research project called Policy Influence of Indicators (POINT) made use of BECM as part of a process for exploring ways in which groups make use of indicators in several domains. This paper tells the story of how BECM was used in the POINT project to gain an understanding of group behaviour by observation of four segregated but linked qualities.

Wiley Online Link

Bell, S. and Morse, S. 2011. Being, Engaging, Contextualizing and Managing Matrix—a Means for Nonspecialists to Assess Group Dynamics? Embedding Technology in Practice. Systems Research and Behavioural Science. DOI: 10.1002/sres.1088.

 

An Approach to Comparing External and Internal Methods for Analyzing Group Dynamic

Abstract:
Beginning with the question, can a multimethodology explore the nature of group work from both the inside out (group participant self-analysis) and the outside in (facilitator observed analysis), this study presents the results of a statistical analysis comparing 2 different approaches to assessing group function: SYMLOG (A SYstem for the Mul- tiple Level Observation of Groups) and BECM (Being, Engaging, Contextualizing and Managing). SYMLOG is a quantitative internal assessment of group function made by members of the group, whereas BECM is a qualitative external assessment made by an outsider observing the groups. Together, it is argued, they provide a unique, triangu- lated assessment of the group dynamic. By using a “best subsets” linear regression technique it was found that some of the 26 characteristics of SYMLOG are related to BECM scoring (adjusted R2 0.82). This article discusses the reasons for this and the repercussions for such blending of approaches to understanding group dynamic. The article ends by discussing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the 2 ap- proaches and potential for further hybridizing of them in blended group dynamic approaches.

APA Link

Bell, S. and Morse, S. 2013. An Approach to Comparing External and Internal Methods for Analyzing Group Dynamic. Group Dynamics: theory, research and practice. 17, 4, 281 – 298.