The first sentence of this reading really put me off, I have to say. I did, though, come around to some bits of it. Having participated in AND run groups, I am all too familiar with the awkward, defensive adolescent silence the authors mention. The closed exploratory therapy group the authors describe, however, seems to address this (under the circumstances where it is possible... I cannot imagine this type of intervention being practical in schools, for kids in transient communities, etc. Having one dedicated clinician stick with a limited number group for a long time? who has the resources for that!).
I also loved the mention of group balance - it reminded me of assigning tables in my classroom or setting up a group project. doing the calculus of how to balance out a group, but with a different set of criteria in mind. And all with the added component of not really 100% knowing the kids!
This did raise a question though: I wonder about the section where the authors say the therapist must be a member of the group, alive and participating, sharing feelings and responses to intimacy. I wonder how this balances with all the boundary/self disclosure/professionalism we are taught. To run an effective teen group, it feels like you kind of have to be involved which goes directly against a lot of the boundary setting we're encouraged to do. What's the deal?
I will say I don't like the authors assertion that there are certain types of kids who cannot benefit from group, as if they're beyond being helped from it in any capacity. Sure it may not be the best fit for them, but I'm also wondering about a situation where a kid doesn't get ANY thing positive out of going to group?? I'm not sure, maybe this does exist, I just didn't feel compelled by the language (such an insignificant critique).