Group Feed-back Analysis (GFA) emerged in the 1960s and has been used with a variety of objectives , but particularly as a method of research (Heller 1969) and, in a more extended form, as a method of facilitating change (Heller 1970). Both formats share three characteristics; one is to use the feed-back as a way of validating research findings, secondly, to use the stimulus from the feed-back procedure as a way of obtaining additional, perhaps deeper and more updated information, and thirdly, to encourage thinking about the research data. This last characteristic can lead, via the assessment of choices, to facilitating change and/or learning.

The present Action Research concentrates on the third characteristic, namely introducing the motivation and therefore the stimulus for organizational learning with the option of considering changes in handling the prevention and amelioration of HIV/Aids.

Data on virtually any subject collected from any population shows variation. Peoples’ judgements, opinions and values differ and these differences are important for GFA, particularly if the objective is to stimulate learning and facilitate change. GFA is designed to stress the interest in differences and conflicts and stimulate the natural curiosity people have to search for explanations. Why should an apparently homogenous group of people, all interested in preventing the occurrence of AIDS, have different experiences, different judgements, priorities and explanations? Why should there be conflict between organizations with similar objectives? Some differences can be accounted for fairly easily, or so it seems at first. The term "culture" is frequently invoked, but what kind of culture? Is it a function of national differences, gender, age or the culture of groups for instance drug addicts? Culture is usually only a partial explanation, or a starting point for a search of some antecedent to "culture". In any case, differences should be explored. Are they functional or dysfunctional, are they rational or irrational, are they excessive in relation to the task in hand? Are differences simply due to history? A given task has always been done in a certain way, so why change even if circumstances have changed.?

The technical term used to describe the exploration of differences and conflicts is "cognitive dissonance". It is based on important psychological research done by Festinger (1958) and, more recently by Zimbardo & Leippe (1991) and others. The research has demonstrated the motivational power of dissonance reduction, that is the natural tendency in groups of people to move towards a narrowing of differences that cannot be easily justified and in that way achieve a measure of consensus. GFA is designed to use cognitive dissonance as a form of organizational learning.