Social groups are entities in which individuals are interconnected through a common trait, social position, or other factors which facilitate the formation of a group. The aspects that unite a multitude of people facilitate the construction of a social group. The aforementioned communities can have various sizes, premises, norms, and objectives. On the one hand, nationality can facilitate the formation of a major social group. On the other hand, two people united through a common trait or mission can have the same definition.
The structure, interactions, and common motivation within the cluster are also essential premises. According to researchers, social groups are constructed based on social relationships (Rodriguez-Santiago et al., 2020). For example, an organization working with homeless people considers the social relationship established as a result of the common factor linking individuals together, such as a lack of stable housing. Other groups may be formed based on different premises, such as income, ethnic background, sexual orientation, gender, religion, education, or political views.
Groups serve various purposes and have different scopes depending on their structure, size, and the factor that facilitates their formation. In regards to size, a smaller group consisting of a member and a facilitator may have a therapeutic and personal purpose. On the other hand, a more significant cluster may have the intention of organizing individuals into communities to implement an intervention that will touch upon the various members. For the premise to be examined further, it is essential to highlight the different types of social groups.
According to researchers, groups differ based on the relationship between the participants. Namely, intimate, face-to-face, and primary groups are those in which the participants are closely related (Kühl, 2020). The tight clusters can be formed among relatives and close friends or church groups or social support collectives as long as the link between the members becomes personal and intensely emotionally active. Primary groups, on the other hand, are linked through a common premise yet are usually temporary and less interpersonal. An example is a social group based on the lack of stable housing, which was mentioned previously. A less attached type, namely, collectives, are formed of individuals linked temporarily and have a loose connection, such as people flying in the same airplane or watching the same movie at the theatre.
The characteristic of a group is based on the mission and the accomplishment of said goal. For example, a group of homeless people can be formed on the basis of intervention when it comes to housing. On the other hand, the group’s characteristics may be described as a therapeutic one if the objective is addressing mental health problems. The characteristic is also closely tied to the facilitator. Hence, the person who constructs the group environment is responsible for facilitating collaboration and establishing goals before ensuring they have been achieved (Jenkinson et al., 2019). The facilitator is a formal entity within the structure of the group. According to researchers, the structure can be formal and informal, formal being the facilitators and the participants, while informal considering people’s hierarchical power within the cluster (Thoman et al., 2019). For example, an individual with a more dominant character or one who has had more experience with homelessness and how to overcome it can become the informal norm creator within the aforementioned group.
When it comes to accomplishing group goals, it is important to effectively formulate the scope and objectives. For example, the formulated goal is to assist homeless people with acquiring housing. The plan implies collaboration with various state and non-profit organizations, legislative implications, and interpersonal relationships with members, namely, emotional support. Establishing the objective, the aspects that are to be considered, and micromanaging each step, in particular, helps group goal accomplishment.
References
Jenkinson, H., Leahy, P., Scanlon, M., Powell, F., & Byrne, O. (2019). The value of groupwork knowledge and skills in Focus Group Research: A FOCUS Group Approach with marginalized teens regarding access to third-level education. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 160940691988185. Web.
Kühl, S. (2020). Groups, organizations, families and movements: The Sociology of Social Systems between interaction and Society. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(3), 496–515. Web.
Rodriguez-Santiago, M., Nührenberg, P., Derry, J., Deussen, O., Francisco, F. A., Garrison, L. K., Garza, S. F., Hofmann, H. A., & Jordan, A. (2020). Behavioral traits that define social dominance are the same that reduce social influence in a consensus task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(31), 18566–18573. Web.
Thoman, D. B., Lee, G. A., Zambrano, J., Geerling, D. M., Smith, J. L., & Sansone, C. (2019). Social influences of interest: Conceptualizing group differences in education through a self-regulation of motivation model. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(3), 330–355. Web.