This article traces the fluctuating interest in research in group analysis since the 1970s and how resistance to evidence-based research was eventually overcome by threats posed by NHS commissioning, leading to the joint IGA/GAS commissioning of the systematic review of the effectiveness of group analysis and dynamic group psychotherapy. The findings and recommendations of the review appear to pose a strategic choice between accepting the rules of the ‘evidence game’ or setting our own standards for meaningful research. Both involve the need to ‘sell’ group analysis. Five steps are suggested as a combination of the two strategies.
GarlandC.KennardD.RobertsJ.P.WinterD.A.CaineT.M.DickB.StevensonF.B. (1984) ‘What is a Group Analyst? A Preliminary Investigation of Conductors’ Interventions’, Group Analysis17(2): 137–45.
2.
KennardD.RobertsJ.WinterD. (1990) ‘What do Group Analysts say in their Groups?’, Group Analysis23(2): 173–84.
3.
KennardD.RobertsJ.WinterD. (1993) A Work Book of Group-Analytic Interventions. London: Routledge [Republished in 2000 by Jessica Kingsley].
4.
Ministers Local Government, NHS, Social Care, Professional and Regulatory Organizations (2007) Putting People First: a Shared Vision and Commitment to the Transformation of Adult Social Care. Department of Health.
5.
RawlinsM.D. (2008) ‘DE TESTIMONIO. On the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions’, The Harveian Oration of 2008. London, Royal College of Physicians.
6.
The Centre for Psychological Services Research, University of Sheffield (2009). ‘A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Clinical Effectiveness of Group Analysis and Analytic/Dynamic Group Psychotherapy’. Available at: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/content/1/c6/09/05/74/IGA_GAS_FINAL_REPORT.pdf
