1.1. Ethical group work
Use the links below to navigate the page.
- Group work ethics, principles and values
- A model for dealing with ethical dilemmas
- Group work in environment
- Concluding comment and reflective questions
- Reference list
By Monica Short and Emma Rush
There are many ways to be an effective group work practitioner. It is always helpful for social work practitioners to critically reflect on and consider our group work philosophy and ethical approach alongside our profession’s ethical foundations, like the Australian Association of Social Workers (2020) Code of Ethics. To explain: it is important that an Australian social worker’s group work philosophies and ethical approaches align with the Code’s principles of respect, social justice and integrity (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2020). These principles are ethical expressions and stated aims of social work endeavours (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2020).
For example, if a practitioner upholds respect, social justice and integrity, these principles will be present in all group phases (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2020). If practitioners value the professional virtue of kindness in social work practice, then this will be displayed in how they engage with individuals within a group (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2020; Rush, et al., in press). If personhood and personalisation approaches like the person-directed one are considered essential to the social worker, this will be present within their group work (Short et al., 2018). Social workers applying a person-directed approach would use the word person or a person’s name within a group and, in their case notes and reports about the group. They would avoid potentially depowering words such as client.
Jan Fook encourages all of us to take time and reflect on our work and to challenge negative cultures, questionable ethical approaches and norms, and unhelpful groupthink impacting our practice (Fook & Askeland, 2007). We need to continually evaluate what we bring to our group work practice and our engagements with group members, particularly:
- How we develop trust within a group,
- How power is shared,
- The group norms that we encourage,
- How decisions are made,
- How we use our skills, such as in achieving group tasks and regarding maintenance functions, and
- Why and when we will check in with group members to see how they are going (Bundey et al., 1988).
Group work ethics, principles and values
Groups are dynamic and complex, and a social work group work practitioner requires the skills, knowledge base, and ethical formation to meet the needs of the people engaging in a group without causing harm (McCarthy et al., 2022). To ensure this, as cited by McCarthy et al. (2022), the Association for Specialists in Group Work have identified the following values as essential for group work practice:
- Fidelity to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
- Development of cultural sensitisation, responsiveness, and competence, and the willingness to be informed by other cultures, communities, and disciplines.
- Openness to innovative techniques, modalities, and delivery platforms.
- Commitment to a holistic framework for the training, practice, supervision, evaluation, and research of group work.
- Research and research-informed practice.
- The pursuit of excellence through ongoing professional development that includes continuing education and supervision, as well as ongoing examination and adoption of culturally competent practices.
- The conviction that group work has specific, distinct, and unique benefits.
- The belief that group work holds great potential to facilitate human growth, development, and healing in the interpersonal rather than individual environment.
- The belief that an evolving but definable core knowledge base, clinical skills, and advocacy skills exist and are essential for competent group work practice.
- The belief that group work has unique ethical considerations across training, practice, supervision, evaluation, and research domains. (McCarthy et al., 2022, p. 11).
This extensive list aligns with the Australian Association of Social Workers (2020) Code of Ethics. Social Workers, through their group work, are to:
- Enhance their individual and collective well-being and social development.
- Resolve personal and interpersonal problems.
- Improve and facilitate engagement with the broader society.
- Address systemic barriers to full recognition and participation.
- Protect the vulnerable from oppression and abuse (Australian Association of Social Work, 2020, p. 5).
A model for dealing with ethical dilemmas
There is much to consider when establishing and conducting a group. Group work is complex, and we can expect groups to experience ethical dilemmas or conflict. Knowing what to do regarding ethical dilemmas and conflict and how to move forward can be confusing, however, it is possible. Social work group work practitioners require supervision and the tools and resources to resolve dilemmas. The following model can help with critically reflecting on a dilemma or conflict and considering what resources are needed to resolve it (Rush et al., in press; Short et al., 2023).
Short and Rush’s model for engaging resources in resolving ethical dilemmas in health and human services encourages practitioners to begin by valuing personhood and respecting every person in the group (Rush et al., in press; Short et al., 2023). Next, the social worker articulates the ethical dilemma that has arisen in the group (Rush et al., in press; Short et al., 2023). The practitioner then works through each of the four phases, identifying available resources.
The phases are engaging:
- Internal ethical resources such as spiritual, theological and philosophical ones;
- Theoretical ethical resources such as group work theory;
- Organisational and professional resources such as ethical codes; and
- Collegial resources such as supervision and mentoring.
At all stages of the process, the practitioner retains ethical responsibility for resolving the dilemma or conflict for all involved in the best way possible. These phases are illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 1:
Short and Rush’s model for engaging resources in the resolution of ethical dilemmas in health and human services (Rush et al., in press; Rush et al., 2020; Short et al., 2023).
Here is a hypothetical fictitious example that illustrates how Short and Rush’s model helps provide structure for resolving issues within a group.
A closed support group for carers of people living with disabilities and/or mental illness has formed and meets weekly. Members of the group contracted that people obtain permission from the group before sharing information about the group outside the group. At the end of a group session on personal strategies for coping with making difficult decisions, a member asks if they could share what was discussed in the group that morning with their neighbour who is also a carer for someone living with a mental illness. The group discusses the request and becomes split with 50% agreeing and 50% disagreeing about sharing the conversation. The group asks the social worker to cast the deciding vote. The social worker is uncertain what to do. Some members of the group become upset and threaten to leave the group.
In this complex situation, the social worker is not isolated as they have resources they can draw upon. The social worker can respectfully inform the group they need time to think about the request and will talk more about the situation at next week’s meeting. The social worker can then take time to identify and clarify the ethical and conflictual issues occurring in the group, remember the personhood of each person in the group, reflect on what is their own role and ethical responsibilities for resolving the dilemma in the group and consider how they can promote the wellbeing of all members of the group. They can engage their internal ethical resources; the social worker might choose to internally pray about or contemplate the situation. The social worker can consider what theoretical ethical resources such as group work theory says about resolving conflicts in groups; they can review professional and organisational resources such as value statements, duty documents, policies and procedures. The worker can explore the issues and possible ways forward with their formal and/or informal collegial resources such as professional peer supervision. Using this range of resources will help the social worker reduce their stress and make a professional and informed decision/s about how they will support each member of the group whilst helping to resolve the conflict.
Group work in environment
The Australian Association of Social Workers (2020) Code of Ethics reminds us that group work occurs with people in their social, cultural, and physical environments. Hence, our practice needs to be ethical and grounded in country, place, culture, language and cuisine (Garrat et al., 2024). Green & Baldry (2008) also highlight that social work needs to understand the history alongside the social and cultural contexts where we work and where people live.
Photograph 2:
Walk and talk group work activity: People on Ngunnawal and Ngambri environment/land. Photograph of the class sitting in front of the natural Indigenous grasses of Canberra by Monica Short. (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Concluding comment and reflective questions
Chapter 1. introduced us to group work theory and how it relates to practice. Groups applying Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication Model, First Nations’ talking circles, Pâquet-Deehy et al.’s typology of social work practice with groups and Tuckman’s group work phases can be utilised in most social work fields of practice and at the micro, meso and macro levels. Three questions to consider when proposing and facilitating a group are:
- What virtues will the group and I display?
- How will my internal, theoretical, professional and/or organisational, and collegial ethical principles be upheld?
- What ethical resources will I engage when I experience an ethical dilemma within a group?
Reference list
Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). AASW Code of Ethics 2020. https://www.aasw.asn.au/about-aasw/ethics-standards/code-of-ethics/
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Census of population and housing: Estimating homelessness, 2006. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2049.0Main+Features12006?OpenDocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Census of population and housing: Estimating homelessness, 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/estimating-homelessness-census/latest-release
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2019). Older Women’s Risk of Homelessness: Background Paper Exploring a growing problem. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/age-discrimination/publications/older-womens-risk-homelessness-background-paper-2019
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Brown, M. A., & Di Lallo, S. (2020). Talking circles: A culturally responsive evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(3), 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214019899164
Bundey, C., Cullen, J., Denshire, L., Grant, J., Norfor, J., & Nove, T. (1989). A manual about group leadership and a resource for group leaders. Western Sydney Area Health Promotion Centre.
Dempsey, K. (2018). Be the change you want to see in the world: The practice of nonviolence in social work education. In M. Pawar, W. Bowles & K. Bell (Eds.), Social work innovations and insights (pp.294-314). Australian Scholarly Publishing.
Dominelli, L. (2012). Green social work: From environmental crises to environmental justice. Polity.
Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2007). Challenges of critical reflection: ‘Nothing ventured, nothing gained’. Social Work Education, 26(5), 520-533.
Garrat J., McDonnel, E., Horan, F., Mackell, P., Perrin, J., Craven, M., Staughton , S., Richardson, A., Lowe, R. & Short, M. (2024). Reflecting on social work practice in the Northern Territory, Australia. Australian Social Work, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2024.2393321
Green, S., & Baldry, E. (2008). Building Indigenous Australian social work. Australian Social Work, 61(4), 389-402.
Hughes, M., & Heycox, K. (2018). Working with older people (Gerontological social work). In M. Alston, S. McCurdy & J. McKinnon (Eds)., Social Work: Fields of Practice (3rd ed.) (pp. 100-131). Oxford University Press.
International Federation of Social Workers. (2024). Global definition of social work. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/
Joseph, B. L., & Hall, N. (2022). Building young men: A dynamic group mentoring program at the intersection of group work, mentoring, adolescence, and sport. Social Work with Groups, 46(4), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2022.2113248
Lindsay, T., & Orton, S. (2014). Groupwork practice in social work (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
McCarthy, C. J., Bauman, S., Choudhuri, D. D., Coker, A., Justice, C., Kraus, K. L., Luke, M., Rubel, D., & Shaw, L. (2022). Association for specialists in group work guiding principles for group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 47(1), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2021.1950882
Mullaly, B. (2010). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege: A critical social work approach (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Pâquet-Deehy, A., Hopmeyer, E., Home, A. M., & Kislowicz, L. (1985). A typology of social work practice with groups. Social Work with Groups, 8(1), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v08n01_07
Prinsloo, R. (CE). (2019). Cutting and sewing brings Africa to the world: Social justice for older people. Social Work With Groups, 43(1–2), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2019.1641286
Rosenberg, M. B., & Chopra, D. (2015). Nonviolent communication: A language of life: Life-changing tools for healthy relationships (3rd ed.). PuddleDancer Press.
Rush, E., Short, M., Duncombe, R. (in press). Addressing complex ethical decisions in social work and human services in an unequal world. In R. Baikady (Ed.). Social work education in an unequal world. Oxford University Press.
Rush, E., Short, M., Burningham, G. & Cartledge, J. (2020). Philosophy and ethics: Sustaining social inclusion in the disability sector. In B. Crisp & A. Taket (Eds.), Sustaining social inclusion (pp. 203-221). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429397936
Sharry, J. (2007). Solution-focused groupwork (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Short, M., Dempsey, K., Ackland, J., Rush, E., Heller, E. & Dwyer, H. (2018). What is a person? Deepening students’ and colleagues’ understanding of person-centredness. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 20(1), 139-156.
Short, M., Rush, E., & Duncombe, R. (2023, November 3). Addressing complex ethical decisions in social work and human services. ANZSWWER 2023 Symposium, Queensland, Australia.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
YWCA Canberra. (2019). Leading the change: The pathway to gender equality. https://ywca-canberra.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Leading-the-Change_GEReport_Final-Sept-2019.pdf
YWCA Canberra. (2024a). About us. https://ywca-canberra.org.au/about-us/
YWCA Canberra. (2024b). Housing. https://ywca-canberra.org.au/community-service/housing-support/#programs
