This study has been written in order to recall the importance of the sociology of small groups and small group research in sociology. American sociologists Cooley and Mead were critical figures in the emergence of a new sub-discipline called the sociology of small groups. Cooley argued an organic and indissoluble link to be present between the self and society, with some social interactions having a significant and profound impact on individuals’ selves. He defined “primary groups” as groups that have close relationships with each other, that consist of individuals bound by ties of cooperation and affection, and that have a decisive influence on individuals’ socialization and self-identity processes (Coser, 2010, pp. 344–345). Similar to Cooley’s views, Mead also emphasized the determinant role that interactions with meaningful and important surroundings have on the development of individuals’ minds and selves (Coser, 2010, p. 347). The basic idea of the symbolic interactionism approach is this interaction between the individual and society. Social behaviors and social order emerge as a particular result of individuals developing themself through their interactions with these near them (Kagıtcıbası, 1977, p. 15). One should also not forget the influence Simmel’s formal sociology had on the background of these two thinkers’ views (Swingewood, 2010, p. 143). Underlining how the sociology of small groups developed within American sociology in particular is also important. One of the features that facilitated the study of small groups in America was that small groups there were quite independent compared to those in France, Germany, or Soviet Russia, and conducting social experiments with them was quite easier. These small groups did not have strong ideologies of culture and religion. In addition, the public was open to all kinds of ideas and therefore readily agreed to participate in experiments (Moreno, n.d., p. 7).

Small group research is a common topic in sociology and social psychology. Historically, the roots of this interest can be found in the work of pioneering minds. Apart from the early group behavior research of the Chicago school, early sociologists such as Simmel, Cooley, Ross, and von Wiese had made the most important contributions to the field. Sociology provided the definition of the small group phenomenon and the creation of theory, while psychology used manipulative approaches to test their hypotheses in the laboratory. However, difficulty is had when making any real distinction between the two disciplines during the field’s development (Borgatta, 1960, p. 173).

Until 1935, group studies had centered on how the group and individuals solve problems. After 1935, Zander (1979, p. 273) gave examples of new topics began to appear in group studies, such as group structure and the interactions between members (Moreno, 1934), the effect of group norms on the individual (Sherif, 1936), the effect of membership in a work group on the emotions of factory workers (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939), group dynamics, different leader behaviors, and the impact of leadership on group characteristics and member behavior (Lewin et al., 1939). Kağıtçıbaşı (1977, p. 20) mentioned some of the prominent concepts in small group studies sociologists conducted after the 1930s, relative deprivation (Stouffer et al., 1949); role, role conflict, and status (Parsons & Shils, 1951; Merton, 1957); status crystallization (Lenski, 1945; Lenski, 1956); alienation (Nettler, 1957); and anomie (Srole, 1951; Srole, 1956). Sociological studies on natural groups using participant observation include the works of Thrasher (1927) and Whyte (1943). Zander (1979, p.274) explained the topics frequently studied in the 1940s were the social pressure individuals exert on each other in groups (Festinger, 1950), the direction and amount of communication between group members (Bavelas, 1950), contradictions in the behavior of members in cooperative and competitive groups (Deutsch, 1949), the consequences of training community leaders (Lippitt, 1949), and the effects of social power among children (Lippitt et al., 1952).

Moreover, the central government in the USA after WWII had established units, funds, and activities to support group studies (Zander, 1979, p. 275), with the small group studies Mayo (1933) and Hovland et al. (1949) conducted being examples of this cooperation (as cited in Kagıtcıbası, 1977, p. 19). Other important names in the field of group studies include Bales, who developed a sociological theory on group interaction, made an important contribution to the field by shifting the focus in group studies from the effect of the group on the individual to the effect on the group from different variables such as group size, personality traits of group members, and emotional bonds between them, as well as Moreno, who measured interpersonal relationships to understand the structure and network of relationships within the group (Borgatta, 1960, pp. 176–177). Although a quantitatively large number of small group studies had occurred in the 1950s in particular, a decline had occurred in small group studies by the 1960s, with the focus going to the individual (personal development and interpersonal relationships) rather than the group. In the 1970s, the main topics in group studies involved social pressure in groups, group cohesiveness, and cooperating and competing groups. Although interest in issues such as leadership, group structure, and problem solving in groups continued, the main interest was in the polarization of group members’ views and cognitive processes within the group. The use of groups for “personal development” was also an important area of study during this period (Zander, 1979, p. 279). In the 1980s, the pragmatic, methodological, and statistical difficulties that hindered the study of group dynamics began to be improved (Johnson & Johnson, 2014, p. 38). A big data analysis of 1,522 articles published in the journal Small Group Research (SGR) between 1970-2019 revealed the following 10 topic clusters based on the keywords: team performance, virtual teams, cohesion and communication, learning dynamics, group decision-making, collective efficacy and emotional intelligence, creativity, interdisciplinary collaboration, group counseling, and consensus (Emich et al., 2020). 

Small groups are important because they fulfill the needs of individuals in four different categories: (1) survival needs, (2) psychological needs, (3) information needs, and (4) identity needs (Levine & Moreland, 2008, p. 1). Small groups mediate between levels of sociological analysis through their ability to control, compete, organize, represent, and allocate. Many of the fundamental processes of the discipline of sociology are embedded in small groups (Harrington & Fine, 2000, p. 319). As one of the components of understanding society and daily lives of individuals, understanding and explaining the many large and small groups that make up a society, the characteristics of these groups, the internal dynamics of these groups, and the interaction between groups and finding solutions to problems make for quite a challenge in sociology (Kagıtcıbası, 1992, p. 200; Mills, 1967, pp. 2–3). The basic institutions of society (i.e., family, organizations, education, and health) are completely related to small groups (Johnson & Johnson, 2014, pp. 13–15).

However, some difficulties also occur in studying small groups. One of these is that various disciplines prefer small groups as a subject of study. Another difficulty is that different disciplines study the subject with different methods and thus have no methodological unity (Davis, 1994, p. 187; Strodtbeck & Hare, 1954, p. 107). Apart from the difficulties, the main criticism of small group studies is that they are considered unimportant and easy because they just involve routine experiments (Borgatta, 1960, pp. 174–175).

However, new perspectives have been developed in current studies on small group sociology. Harrington and Fine (2006) referred to the project of sociological miniaturism. This approach claims that macrostructural issues can be analyzed by examining smallscale phenomena. In other words, this view suggests that broader social forces and processes can be examined using small group dynamics. Interpersonal settings function as simulations or microcosms of larger social units/structures in which fundamental processes can be observed in detail. Action occurs in the here and now, thus allowing one to theorize about diversity, conflict, and change (Harrington & Fine, 2006, p. 6). This is similar to Moreno’s sociometric (1941). Small groups exist wherever action occurs. A great meso-level understanding has emerged in sociology that links individual action to social structures in this way. The important difference here is the emphasis on the link between interaction and memory and the examination of the past, present, and future of interactions (Harrington & Fine, 2006, p. 16). 

A final point to mention about why small groups should be studied is the need to reformulate small group processes alongside the digitalization of societies because virtual groups exist now. Betts (2016, p. 143) noted that understanding group interactions in the digital world is also important for understanding commercial and economic exchanges, because technology now ameliorates many of the geographical constraints and social conventions associated with face-to-face interaction. The potential for group interactions is limitless, and the norms and values governing interactions in the digital world are likely to be different. Technology will change the nature of interactions, and small group research needs to study these interactions using new methods that have been developed in line with emerging technology.

In summary, this study should be read as an effort to ensure that the field of the sociology of small groups finds its rightful place in contemporary sociology. Since the emergence of sociology as a discipline, sociology’s study of small groups has been important, and small groups have served as a reminder of sociology’s ability to offer solutions to conceptual and methodological dichotomies.