further evaluation thoughts -and still further.....

[bernard widlake]

Thanks for your development of this theme, Adam. I  am pleased to be appreciated for focusing and specificity as this is a learnt behaviour and not my default mode!
Concerning the first question of the imagined board of experienced and naive..
Did the protagonist show signs of dissociating e.g. physical immobility, slowness to change or reverse role? If so were these picked up and dealt with?
Similarly for group members.
Was there MOVEMENT in the psychodrama, in space and time, so that the protagonist could avoid being stuck as above.

I have a request now of anyone on listserve who has time and information to help.
I am offering a workshop at the South West Bereavement Co-Ordinators Conference in June and wondered if anyone has knowledge and resources about psychodrama as applied to end of life and bereavment issues. I can apply  much of what I have learnt from Dr. Kate Hudgins and trauma work, but, or course, death and bereavement are existential traumas, and I imagine there are differences. But I won't elanborate     for now. 
Thanks if anyone can help.

Bernard.         




----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adam Blatner 
  To: bernard widlake ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:37 AM
  Subject: further evaluation thoughts


  Hi, I appreciate Bernard's focusing and specificity. As I read over these and thought about them, I imagined a team of three senior or experienced---or two experienced and one still new and fresh and able to ask penetrating questions free of the cultural conserve--- and they argue: 

      So see below and comments:  Bernard bernard widlake  responded to Peter Howie's questions (below below) thus -- with my questions, sort of a committee double: 

  How to evaluate a psychodrama? 
      1. Did the protagonist esperience sufficient SAFETY? 
                 a. What's sufficient? I think it went well.
              b. I think it was insufficient. There were moments of ambiguity, transference, loss of warm-up with audience... etc.
        (Point: What would be the sub-criteria for sufficiency in safety, and what would be the issues here? What are some situations where some folks might differ in their reaction, were they to review an imagined videotape of the session?

    so, in the same spirit: 

     2. Were boundaries clearly delineated and maintained?
               a. Sure, good.
               b. Not clearly dilineated or maintained.
             c. Why do you say that? 
                 b. offers examples of fair-to-middling activities that attended to boundaries, but to say they were clearly dilineated would be to overstate this effort. Ditto with maintenance. Question: What would be examples of good, adequate, marginal, sub-marginal, incompetent? 
         As I say, these are good questions of Bernard that stimulate my thinking to wonder about more specifics. If I were chosen to be an on-site evaluator and used these criteria, what kinds of situations might unfold that would make me confident in either saying competent or incompetent, and what kinds of situations might make me feel uneasy.  Calling a ball pitched in baseball, whether it qualifies as a strike or not, is comparatively easy.

       3.   Were the group members co-opted into the process in a way which em-powered them?
                      a. Sure, it was nicely done.
                    b. Well, it wasn't exactly badly done, but I can't say it was good, either.
         (Why would b differ with a? What are examples of marginal or ambiguous acts in this regard?)

       4 .  Was anyone hurt and not attended to?  (I speak from experience of failing to note someone who was affected, and being helped out by another group member who did notice)
            (AB: thank you for your honesty. I think many of us have made this error.)
                     a. That happened a little with group member M, I think.
               b. Yes, but group member N picked it up and did (what).. and I think that made it okay.
                        a. But shouldn't we have expected the director to take care of it? 


      5. Was the director sufficiently supported by t he  group or was he or she able to request that support?
                  a. Yes.   b. No.   
               a. If no, how did you think that happened?   b. well, it was marginal. Maybe. 
                         a. Should the director have commented on the mixed or lukewarm perception? Perhaps wanting more support would have seemed to narcissistic, vulnerable, sort of "how did I do, was I good, huh?"   too eager?
                   b. not that, but... 

  BL   I am sure there are more, and that questions could be  drawn together under headings to simplify and focus the process. But I like the start this and Peter's email has offered.   

  AB: yes, good topic, really, but it reminds me how thick and ambiguous is this field. It partakes of drama, the aesthetic decisions that directors and critics might disagree about. And of course in psychology, different professsionals consciously and unconsciously weigh certain criteria, and are often unaware of their biases.    

      Warmly, Adam 

  building on  Peter Howie : December 06, 2009 re : Quick ways to evaluate the efficacy of a psychodrama and session 
    Hi All,  

  Running an advanced training group recently, I invited some of the trainees to be examiners and subsequently a few questions arose. Chief amongst these was "what are some of the simple heuristics or rules of thumb that a person could apply to determine if their work was adequate?" These rules of thumbs are ones that allow other considerations and structuring to follow after. This is the list we developed and I invite any of you to add some more. The list so far: 

  1 The outcome for the protagonist is a good one  

  2 The quality of the sharing is high (it is deep and relates to the drama)   

  3 The openness of discussions in the group following the drama  \

   4 Adequacy of the role reversals (i.e. was the protagonist able to really get into some of the roles of others in their system and see themselves through those other's eyes?) 

  5  Relationships in the group 

  6 The protagonists drama progresses the group concern or other group themes or situations 

  7  It increases the happiness of the planet (The buddhist approach)   

   8  The spontaneity of the group is increased 

   9.  The is an increase in the spontaneity of the protagonist 

  10    The production was done fully and the systems explored 

  11  The functioning of the director was OK 

  12   The relationship between the director and the protagonist was maintained and developed 

  13   The group's resources were well utilised      

  Some of these could easily be seen as different ways of saying the same thing. But that's the value of a rule of thumb - it is easy to apply and can be applied in different ways. Rules of thumb are also dangerous to rely on because they are only ever general. But most people create their own rules of thumb as short cuts and ways of making sense of the world. Any extra rules of thumb you have developed would be greatly appreciated.    

  Cheers    Peter in Brisbane      Peter Howie B.Sc, TEP  Managing Director   The Moreno Collegium for Human Centred Learning, Research and Development    0411 873 851   www.morenocollegium.com.au  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20100224/7b320a9a/attachment.html>