Solution-focused, enactive and narrative… The action is in the interaction Mark McKergow sfwork/University of Hertfordshire
Jun 14, 2015
Solution-focused, enactive and narrative…
The action is in the interaction
Mark McKergowsfwork/University of Hertfordshire
A world first…The first academic research conference on SF and
narrative therapy (as opposed to practitioner conferences)
The first time bringing the ‘enactive’ paradigm into this arena
At the University of HertfordshireWorld leaders in enactive and Wittgensteinian thinking Ran the first university-based SF therapy module (1995)
Solution-focused practiceRoots in the interactional brief therapy tradition
Bateson, Milton Erickson, Mental Research Institute (60s on)Patterns of communication rather than ‘internal disorder’
Developed by BFTC Milwaukee teamSteve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg
Minimalism meets pragmatismDon’t worry about diagnosis, causes, underlying issues,
psychological mechanisms (these all seem to make therapy slower…)Engage client in descriptive talk about what they want, how their life
would be different if they had it, when they have a bit of that already
Now in use (sometimes undercover) all over the UK and the world, and in many other fields including coaching and organisational change
What SF therapists do and don’t normally do at allDo Don’t normally do at allFocus on what the client (and
others involved) say they want, and what difference that would make during ordinary daily activities
Ask about what helps the client progress in the direction he/she/they want
Focus on what's wrong and why
Ask what stops or blocks the client
Taken from McKergow and Korman (2009)
What SF therapists do and don’t normally do at all (2)Do Don’t normally do at all Use the client's descriptions of what
they want and what of this is already happening to help everyone involved decide what is most useful for the client to do more of.
Listen very carefully to what clients say, believing that in the words themselves there lies everything necessary for clients to find and build solutions. Solution focused therapists following de Shazer's lead (de Shazer 1994) talk about this as "staying on the surface".
Diagnose pathology or use theories to understand what is going wrong in client's lives
Assume that what is left unsaid or what is deemed to be underneath or behind the words is more interesting or significant than what is said
Taken from McKergow and Korman (2009)
What SF therapists do and don’t normally do at all (3)Do Don’t normally do at allUse simple concrete language
to build on the client's descriptions
Introduce abstract, mentalistic or systemic language into the conversation or into their thinking at any stage
Taken from McKergow and Korman (2009)
Narrative practiceMichael White and David Epston, late 80’sFocusing on ‘thickening’ useful narratives (of which there
are usually traces already) and leaving problem narratives to wither and die
Witnessing practices – observers adding to conversations
ComparisonSimilarities Differences‘Client is expert’ in their own
lives and wishesTherapist in a not-knowing
positionAccepting/privileging client
language and guiding conversation
Post-structural background (if one is needed)
The action is in the interaction
SF pragmatism / narrative more elaborate
Narrative explicitly social constructionist /SF implicitly
Different traditions – different norms
(But recent dialogue on rapprochement)
SF can be viewed as ‘narrative emergence’ (Miller & McKergow 2013)
The practic
es require
s gentle not-
knowing and appreciatio
n…
While
academia demands assertive
confidence…
‘Theory’ of these approachesA tricky business… what kind of theory? And indeed
what kind of practice (SFCT Clues help)Steve de Shazer insisted that there was no missing theory
to SF practice – even Wittgenstein – fear that ‘theory’ will take attention from client and what they are saying
However, where something works against expectations, it’s interesting to investigate…
Karlstad Group (2008 on) – ‘metathing’ SF Summit, Malmo (2010)Now connections with the enactive paradigm
The enactive paradigmPost-Wittgenstein position, parallels with Bateson The Embodied Mind (Varela, Thompson and Rosch, 1991)Contrast with ‘cognitive’ paradigm (brain computes etc) No ‘mental representations’ - we actively engage with the
world (which is its own representation) Using mentalistic terms – Narrative Practice Hypothesis
(Hutto)Recent developments driven in part by AI and robot
developers – practical successesLatest Hutto work on ‘narrative self shaping’…The actio
n is in
the in
teractio
n (again)
Why are we here today?US university professor: “Presently, there is very little research evidence that solution focused therapy is effective or that it is beneficial in helping people solve their personal problems. Unfortunately, too many of the psychotherapies that are provided have yet to be examined or shown to work. This does not mean that they do not work -- instead, it means that we really don't know that they are beneficial…. Unfortunately, solution focused therapy has yet to the kind of research support that would put it into the category of evidence based treatment. For that reason, I cannot extend an invitation to Elliott Connie to speak at the college (sponsored by the graduate program)."
Little evidence?Or “I think I can safely ignore the evidence”?Or “If I took the evidence seriously, I would have to
rethink my whole field and I don’t want to do that”?
Out in the cold?The vast majority of SF and narrative developments
happen outside the academic discourseLack of focus for publications (scattergun literature)No university-based centre or focus Questions about ‘what counts as evidence’ – eg needing
a diagnostic category (Catch 22) Lying outside ‘manualised treatment’ – this is a skilful
practice which needs practice (like playing the piano) No good account of mechanism or broader paradigm (but
see enactivism and narrative emergence)
Questions for this conferenceWhat counts as good evidence/research?How to collect, package and distribute research so that it
can no longer be ignored? (A ‘research bulletin’?)How to influence research activities and developments in
this field? (A ‘research hub’?) How to bring together developments in philosophy of
mind/psychology with practical implications? (A cross-disciplinary setting?)