The authors respond to issues raised by commentators about the goals and process (GAP) matrix. They discuss themes apparent in several commentaries, including the choice of nomenclature, the need for a new model, the level of complexity of the model, the difficulty of capturing dynamic groups in a rigid/reductionist model, the omission of task/work groups from the original model, and the revision of the Association for Specialists in Group Work model suggested by Conyne and Wilson. A revised version of the GAP matrix that attempts to address these issues is presented.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Psychology
- Developmental and Educational Psychology