• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Sociodrama and related articles from the journal Sociatry from 1947 through to the Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry in 2007 1. 1947 v1 n1 82-91 Sociodramatic clarification of leader and group roles - Lipptt 2 2. 197 v1 n1 92-96 Sociodrama in a small community therapy program 12 3. 1947 v1n3 333-413 Workshop in sociodrama: Papers, projects and evaluations 17 4. 1948 v1n4 357-358 Sociodrama with Gandhi 35 5. 1948 v1 n4 431-435 Sociodrama as an Aid to Large Group Communication 37 6. 1948 v1 n4 404-413 Sociodrama in the sociology classroom 42 7. 1948 v2n1 &2 67-68 Sociology and Sociodrama 52 8. 1948 v2n1 &2 69-72 Combining General Semantics with Sociodrama for a Laboratory Method in the Social 54 Sciences 9. 1948 v2n1&2 73-74 Sociometry, Sociodrama and the Curriculum 58 10. 1949 Sociodrama and psychodrama In the college basic communication class 60 11. 1950 v3n1 102-105 Sociodrama Session At The Mansfield Theatre 106 12. 1952 v5n1&2&3 4-19 Sociodramatic approach to minority problems 110 13. 1952 v5n1 &2&3 20-37 Sociodrama of a Family Conflict 123 14. 1954 v6n3-4 227-255 Exploring Skills of Family Life at School Sociodrama with a Fourth Grade Group 141 15. 1961 v14n1 &2 62-67 Sociodrama In a Church Setting 170 16. 1961 v14n1 &2 66-67A note on audience involvement and role playing n sociodrama 174 17. 1968 v21 n4 206-210 Sociodrama and Psychodrama with Urban Disadvantaged Youth 176 18. 1971 v24n3-4 97-100 Sociodrama In a Church Group 181 19. 1971 v24n3-4 121- 124 Sociodrama of Black Students at a White Preparatory School 182 20. 1971 v24n3-4 138- 149 Use of Psychodrama and Sociodrama In Reducing Excessive Negro Aggression 189 21. 1972 v25n4 170-181 Redemptive Encounter Its Use in Psychodrama, Ancestral Sociodrama and Community 201 Building 22. 1973 v26n1-2 120- 129 Applying Crisis Theory and Sociodrama In Criminal Justice Education 213 23. 1980 v33 162-169 The Social Living Class- A Model for the Use of Sociodrama in the Classroom 223 24. 1980 v33 170-178 Sociodrama and Role Stress 231 25. 1986 v39n1 31-39 Sociodrama and the Vietnam Combat Veteran- A Therapeutic Release for a Wartime 240 Experience 26. 1994 v46n414 3-149 Sociodrama as a Social Diagnostic Tool- Our Experience In Paraguay 266 27. 1995 v48n1 31-41 Sociodrama and Professional Ethical Conflicts 273 28. 1998 v50n4 139-156 Psychodrama and family therapy--what 's In a name? 267 29. 2000 v52n4 147-154 The Alien Invasion Exercise - Creating an experience of diversity 286 30. 2000 v53n2 86-93 A new role for psychodramatists - Master of ceremonies- Blatner 292 31. 2005 n58v2 86-101 Action Methods in Marriage and Family Therapy-A Review 298 32. 2006 v58n41 57-167 Finding My Place- The Use of Sociometric Choice and Sociodrama for Building 310 Community In the School 33. 2006 v58n4 182-194 How Rude! - Using Sociodrama in the Investigation of Bullying and Harassing Behavior 318 and In Teaching Civility In Educational Communities SOCIODRAMATIC CLARIFICATION OF LEADER AND GROUP ROLES, AS A STARTING POINT FOR EFFECTIVE GROUP FUNCTIONING RONALD LIPPITT Resewch Center for Group Dynamics Massachusetts Institute of Technology LELAND P. BRADFORD National Education Association, Washington, D. C. KENNETH D. BENNE Teachers College, Columbia University The newly appointed committee, or the two day professional conference, or the two week workshop is about to begin work. The members or delegates are new to each other, they are all unacquainted with the leaders, and the leaders do not know them. Again and again this situation occurs. Usually the warm-up process of group members to each other and to the leader is a slow process, fraught with many misunderstandings, feelings of frustration and unmet expectations. Often the leaders' picture of the appropriate leadership role is not at all similar to the expectations, conscious or unconscious, of the group members for a satisfactory leader. Frequently the group member's image of appro­ priate delegate participation is very different from, even incompatible with, the expectations for his behavior in the mind of the chairman or conference leader. After the first session the leaders of the work groups irritably remark, "What a dead bunch. .. I just can't pull them out. They seem to want me to do all the thinking .... I just had to ke,ep on talking to keep things moving at all, etc." On the front steps a number of the delegates who have begun to know each other a bit from corridor relationships remark a bit cautiously and mildly to each other, "They don't seem to know quite where they are headed for in this conference .... I hope we'll have a real chance to get in to the discQssions soon, I've got a lot of questions I want to bring up, ... I wonder what they were driving at in that session. I couldn't see the point to bringing up my problems when they asked for them; they know the field better than I do, etc." "Just the same old conference-the leaders talk about their problems, so why say anything about ours". And 2 82 SOCIODRAMATIC CLARIFICATION 83 the result of this conflict of misunderstandings about each other's expec­ tancies is often a group that drifts nowhere as the gap widens, or one that is pushed autocratically by the leader toward a goal he perceives but which is in no way really accepted by the participants. Participation in a variety of such "starting sessions" convinced us that these unproductive, and even negative, warm-ups to effective group function­ ing could be prevented if there could be a straightening out of some of these crossed expectations as a first step in the group process. This should include both a mutual acceptance of the definition of satisfactory leader and member or delegate roles, as well as shared anticipations as to the type of group experience which lies ahead. In, a recent two week state workshop* for fifty-six community workers concentrating on improving their techniques of bettering local intergroup relations we experimented with a role-clarifying sociodrama as the opening session. The delegates were a very diversified group-teachers, social work­ ers, group workers, housing project personnel, parents, religious leaders, industrial management representatives, etc. They came from some twenty different communities of the state. There were some cliques of acquaintance­ ship, but relatively few. The leaders were all strangers to the group, except *The Connecticut Workshop in Intergroup Relations is the core of a cooperative project in the discovery and development of community leadership and the evaluation of its effectiveness in dealing with community tension. The Workshop was initiated, organized, promoted, and will be followed up by the State Advisory Committee on Intergroup Relations comprised of representatives from the State Interracial Commission, the State Department of Education, and the Connecticut Valley Regional Office of the National Conference of Christians and Jews. It was conducted by the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which organized and directed the faculty. The experimental phase of the total project and the evaluation of the workshop is being conducted cooperatively by the Commission on Community Interrelations of the American Jewish Congress, the Research Center for Group Dynamics, and the State Advisory Committee on Intergroup Relations. Organization representatives: Frank T. Simpson, State Interracial Commission; Charles E. Hendry, Commission on Community Interrelations, American Jewish Con­ gress; Kurt Lewin, Research Center for Group Dynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Siegmar J. Blamberg, Jr., National Conference of .Christians and Jews; Palmer Howard, Bureau of Youth Services, State Department of Education. Workshop faculty: Leland P. Bradford, Director, Division of Adult Education Service, National Education Association; Kenneth D. Benne, Teachers College, Columbia U.; Kurt Lewin and Ronald Lippitt, Research Center for Group Dynamics. Project Director: Ronald Lippitt. 3 84 SOCIATRY for a certain amount of "prestige from a distance" knowledge the delegates had received about them. The sociodrama was planned to illustrate successful leader-delegate interaction. The roles planned for the demonstration were: the commentator standing at the elbow of the audience; who prepared the audience for the demonstration, who broke in on the scene from time to time to clarify and reinforce for the audience certain strategic points in the scene, and who briefly summarized the demonstration at the end; the group leader role in the conference; the auxiliary leader who served as group recorder (chosen in each group from the delegates) and the delegates. Persons to play the delegate roles were chosen from the members of the state group and from the delegates at the conference. The state group were picked deliberately to play "bad" participant roles so that the delegates would not feel that they were being held up for ridicule. A brief warm-up session was held prior to the demonstration with those in the sociodrama at which time the purpose of the demonstration was quickly clarified and discussed by the group and decisions made as to what typical delegate roles each would take, i.e., the vague thinker; the one who started a statement and then timidly retreated, the dominant center of attention, those who did not participate. Following is an edited recording of the sociodrama. COMMENTATOR: This promises to be a very unique workshop. We can only hope that it is not the workshop to end all workshops but rather the workshop to start better workshops in the future. I think that as we con­ sider the kind of workshop that we want to have we will need to think fairly clearly and deeply about how we act or behave in this workshop.

Load more

  327

Copy Link