Self-Narrative Reconstruction in Psychotherapy: Looking at Different Levels of Narrative Development

Abstract This commentary focuses on Cross’s (2010, this issue)work as an opportunity to elaborate upon how to study narrative-

dialogical processes from the perspective of complexity. We startby elaborating on the notion that narrative development is a

multidimensional activity that extends through severalorganizational levels and on the limitations of conventional

research methods for narrative analysis. Following this, we focuson our experience of research on narrative change in

psychotherapy in order to exemplify this point. From ourperspective, clients’ problematic self-narratives can be challenged

by the emergence of innovative ways of thinking and behavingthat the client narrates during the therapeutic conversation

(innovative moments or i-moments). Our results suggest that thereconstruction of a person’s self-narrative depends on the

structure of relations between i-moments, rather than on the mereaccumulation of i-moments. Therefore, we are particularlyinterested in looking at how clusters of i-moments create a

pattern, which we call protonarrative. We are interested in thedynamic processes between former self-narrative, i-moments,protonarratives and new emergent self-narratives. Hence, wehave developed a research strategy that allows tracking these

different levels of narrative development in psychotherapy. In theremaining of our commentary we will briefly present our research

strategy.

Key Words antenarrative, dynamic systems, innovativemoments, narrative, protonarrative

António P. RibeiroUniversity of Minho, Braga, PortugalTiago BentoCINEICC/ISMAI, Maia, PortugalMiguel M. GonçalvesUniversity of Minho, Braga, PortugalJoão SalgadoCINEICC/ISMAI, Maia, Portugal

Self-Narrative Reconstruction inPsychotherapy: Looking at Different

Levels of Narrative Development

Copyright © The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://cap.sagepub.com/ Vol. 16(2): 1–18 [DOI: 10.1177/1354067X09361400]

Commentary

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 1

Cross’s (2010) task is an ambitious one: to study narrative-dialogicalprocesses from the perspective of complexity. She makes a very goodpoint in highlighting the limitations of ‘conventional researchmethods’ for psychological narratological analysis. From our perspec-tive, these methods generally present two main limitations: a) theytend to focus on content, privileging it over process; and b) they focuson narratives abstracted from the conversational context that originatesthem. Instead, a methodological toolbox aimed at studying narrativeprocesses within dialogical activity should a) focus on the micro-analytical level of small meaning units; b) enable researchers to identifyand describe patterning and change processes along time; c) relatethem with contextual processes; and d) position narrative elements inthe context of communicational processes.

Levels of Narrative Development

We are surrounded by a social and material world to which weconstantly adapt. This contact is constant, intense and always undermodification. The ever-changing surrounding chaos of this experi-encing is a challenge that can only be answered through an organiz-ational activity of the organism (Valsiner, 2001). Several authors haveclaimed that human organization takes the form of narratives (e.g.,Bruner, 1986; McAdams, 1993; White & Epston, 1990).

Within this general framework, the idea that narrative developmentis a multidimensional activity that extends itself through severalorganizational levels with different characteristics and functions isreceiving increasing attention (e.g., Salvatore, Dimaggio, & Semerari,2004). Globally, these proposals suggest a hierarchy from micro tomolar-levels of different narrative structures. As we shall see, we willpresent and integrate different proposals in order to contribute to adevelopmental account of narrative complexity.

Organizational NarrativesAs Vaihinger’s (1935) seminal work convincingly shows, our relation-ship with the world has a fictional and practical nature. In this sense,human experience is inexorably the realm of ‘as if’ since ‘the structureof our relationship with things is always figurative’ (Marcos, 2001,p. 21). In this largely undetermined figurative process of internal andexternal worlds our experiences become condensed in the imagesproduced. However, these images, or representations, do not referexclusively to themselves or to the things they represent but, as theyrefer to, or associate with, other images in a process that unfolds

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

2

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 2

throughout time they become integrated in figurative networks thatconstitute the structure of our experience. This basic and fundamen-tally associative and pragmatic level may be conceptualized as a levelof ‘organizational narratives’ which Prado (1984, p. 118) describes as

the level at which there is a pre-conceptual sensuous manifold and a levelat which there is minimal objectification, one may also speak of a level atwhich there is initial organization of the objectified elements. And thatorganization may be spoken of as consisting of the phenomenological promi-nence attained by some of those objectified elements of awareness.

In this sense, narrative is, first and foremost, a pragmatic and associ-ative basic activity of human beings by which experiential domain getsorganized and may become meaningful. Association is, at this level, anarbitrary process which, along experiential time, produces elementarynarratives. These elementary, non-linguistic associative narrativesbecome the basis for individual actions and so they will acquire theirmeaning by their enactment in individual activity towards the worldor in the context of interpersonal communicational actions. It is theirpragmatic value that determines their extinction or substitution, or, onthe contrary, their expansion and transformation into more conceptualand complex narratives (Mendes, 2001).

AntenarrativesOrganizational narratives become more complex as they are used inindividual practices or communicational interactions. In this processthey can develop into more conceptual and linguistic narrativeelements. However, these narrative elements are not full-fledged narra-tives yet since they do not meet the usual criteria for what constitutesa complete narrative, as required by narrative theorists (e.g., Mandler,1984). Several authors have postulated different notions of narrativethat seem to correspond broadly to this second level of narrativeorganization. For instance, these narrative elements do not posses‘temporal causal connections’ (Sundararajan, 2008, p. 246), nortemporal closure given by the succession of a beginning, middle andend (Boje, 2004). Boje, Rosile, Durant, and Luhman (2004) use theconcept of ‘antenarratives’ to refer to these ‘pre-stories that interweavein complex and chaotic ways’ (p. 752). Antenarratives are ‘an accountof incidents or events, but narrative comes after and adds more “plot”and tighter “coherence” to the story line’ (Boje, 2001, p. 293).

By the same token, antenarratives do not have any fixed or‘determined meaning as they haven’t crystallized into a particularexperiential configuration’ (Lewin, 1997, p. 1). At this level, Boje and

Ribeiro et al. Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

3

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 3

Rosile (2003) emphasize the dynamicity of antenarratives, theirconstant process of clustering and interconnection. In this process,centripetal and centrifugal movements continually bring close to ordistance the narrative elements. Therefore, antenarratives call for ananalytic focus that is sensitive to their potential for plurivocality andpolissemy (Boje, 2004; Sundararajan, 2008).

Self-NarrativesThe previous antenarratives act within the narrative texture ofcomplete and overarching narratives that globally condense andorganize individuals’ multiple experiences of themselves and theworld. These more global narratives, which constitute the third level,emerge through the elaboration of narrative threads that plot togetherotherwise disperse antenarratives (Lewin, 1997). These more complexnarrative forms have fixed and generalized meanings which constrainthe expression of other possible narrative threads.

Therefore, at this most molar level, we will find self-narratives,which Neimeyer (2004) defined as ‘an overarching cognitive-affective-behavioural structure that organizes the “micro-narratives” ofeveryday life into a “macro-narrative” that consolidates our self-understanding, establishes our characteristic range of emotions andgoals, and guides our performance on the stage of the social world’(pp. 53–54).

Although, for the sake of brevity of argument, we have beenaddressing the process of narrative development by focusing on theindividual narrative processes, we must underline that our involve-ment with cultural narrative and semiotic resources, since infancy(Nelson, 2000), brings to the core of selfhood processes cultural narra-tive elements (Gone, Miller, & Rappaport, 1999; Rasmussen, 1999)which become crucial for the organizational function of narrativedevelopment.

Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

The sketch of organizational levels of narrative development presentedabove was intended to underline the complexity of different narrativeelements and processes involved in narrative functioning. Given thiscomplexity and multitude it seems very likely that no specific level willgive us a complete account of the ‘role of narrative within ongoingidentity formation’ (Cross, 2010). In fact, it seems very likely that anoveremphasis on a particular level will obscure the function of otherlevels, giving us an oversimplified version of narrative functioning.

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

4

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 4

Our experience of research on narrative processes of change inpsychotherapy will help us exemplify this point. Our research programstarted from the analysis of change within re-authoring narrativetherapy (White & Epston, 1990; White, 2007). In this therapeutic modelit is proposed that problematic narratives involve most of the timeproblem saturated self-narratives. These are ‘impoverished’ narratives(Dimaggio & Semerari, 2001; Salvatore, Dimaggio, & Semerari, 2004) inthe sense that they are characterized by rigidity and a limited anddominant number of recurrent themes, usually related to the problemthe person is facing, which block the emergence of alternative meaningsor narrative possibilities. In this sense, White (White & Epston, 1990;White, 2007) argues that people who seek therapy are usually subju-gated by these problematic narrative(s) that ‘colonize’ individuals’ senseof self, constricting their options and, thus, their experiences. As we see,these narratives correspond to the more general and molar level towhich we previously alluded. But the question arises as to whatprocesses mediate this transformation of one self-narrative into another?

The problematic self-narrative can be challenged by the emergenceof innovative ways of thinking and behaving that the client narrates inthe therapeutic conversation. We consider these narrative elementsexceptions to the problematic self-narrative—which we call InnovativeMoments (or i-moments)—as emergent meanings that have the latentpower to promote self-narrative reconstruction (Gonçalves, Matos, &Santos, 2009; Gonçalves, Santos, et al., in press; Gonçalves, Ribeiro,Matos, Santos, & Mendes, in press; Matos, Santos, Gonçalves, &Martins, 2009).

This concept is akin to what Boje (2001) calls antenarratives. Inno-vative moments constitute clear examples of the temporallyunbounded nature of antenarratives, and their undetermined meaningpotential. In fact, as we have been observing, at the beginning oftherapy i-moments seem to be devoid of any meaning for clients. Theytend to overlook them and disregard the difference they representtowards the problematic self-narrative. This suggests that althoughthese narrative elements are present in the person’s narrative they donot meaningfully achieve the level of self-narrative.

This seems consistent with Cross’s observation that the beginning ofthe discussion was characterized by a ‘convergent use of narrative’. Ina similar way, at the beginning of therapy, narrative processes maintainproblematic self-narrative’s integrity and consequently meaningsdivergent to that self-narrative tend to be disregarded.

Across therapeutic process the meaning potential of i-moments isexplored in the context of communicational interaction between client

Ribeiro et al. Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

5

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 5

and therapist. However, top-down processes always constrain themeaning potential of i-moments which, therefore, may remaincontained and lead to poor outcome (see Gonçalves, Ribeiro, Stiles,Conde, Santos, et al., 2009, for a further elaboration on this topic; see also Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2010). In good outcome cases, theexploration of the potential meaning of i-moments tends to expand therange of internal states, relational and behavioural possibilities avail-able to the person. As the client becomes more and more aware ofseveral potential meanings of different i-moments, also more and morepreviously unacknowledged behaviours, emotions, and thoughts aremade available for narrative elaboration. As this process unfolds intime i-moments are included in new narrative threads that ultimatelyprovoke change in self-narrative. This last part of therapeutic changeprocess has recently captured our attention.

An Example from a Successful Therapy

We conceptualize narrative as a dynamic system and thus we claim,along with Salvatore, Gelo, Gennaro, Manzo, and Al-Radaideh (inpress), that ‘meaning-making is a matter of pattern modification, ratherthan of cumulative changes of single independent elements’ (p. 6).Along these lines, we have suggested that the reconstruction of aperson’s self-narrative depends on the structure of relations between i-moments, rather than on the mere accumulation of i-moments(Gonçalves et al., 2009). Therefore, we are particularly interested inlooking at how antenarratives get extended as they aggregate aroundthemes; that is, how clusters of i-moments create a pattern, which wecall alternative protonarrative.1 Protonarratives are aggregates of ante-narratives in developmental transition, and the ongoing process oftransformation, in which antenarratives are in the process of becomingself-narratives, should be highlighted. Thus, it is more the process ofsewing narrative threads which tie together different antenarratives,creating intermediate and unstable forms.

Protonarratives are not self-narratives yet and they precede theemergence of new self-narrative. These alternative protonarratives areusually noticeable by the emergence of recurrent themes, different fromthe ones present in the problematic narrative.

Let us clarify this concept by presenting a hypothetical example.Imagine that a client’s problematic narrative is centred on the rule of‘pleasing the others under all circumstances’. Initially, i-moments (levelof antenarrative) could be focused on acknowledging his or her needs,being assertive or expressing his or her anger toward those who

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

6

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 6

neglected her needs over time (e.g., his or her parents) and avoidingcontact with them. At a given moment, i-moments focused on express-ing anger could start to recurrently emerge. The redundancy aroundthis theme may mirror the emergence of a pattern or protonarrativethat could be named as ‘resentment’.

This alternative protonarrative could be transitory, giving place to anew one centred on ‘accepting that others did the best they could andtrying to establish a new kind of relation with them, by asserting hisor her own needs’. This protonarrative could be named as ‘acceptance’(Figure 1).

From our perspective, alternative protonarratives are an emergentquality of patterns of i-moments and encapsulate their latent power topromote change. The distinction between protonarratives and the ante-narratives or self-narratives is only dependent on a developmentallook of the process. Thus, it is a processual distinction and not a formaldistinction—it is more a matter of how, instead of a matter of what.

From our point of view, these alternative protonarratives mediate thedevelopment of new i-moments, acting as attractors (Figure 2). In turn,these new i-moments operate upon the protonarrative promoting itsdevelopment and progressive differentiation.

We are interested in the dynamic processes between problematicself-narrative i-moments, protonarratives and new emergent self-narratives. It is our hypothesis that several protonarratives mayemerge in a given psychotherapeutic process. Some of them maydevelop into a new self-narrative, others may disappear. Besides, we

Ribeiro et al. Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

7

Figure 1. An example of protonarratives’ development throughout therapy

Time

Resentment Acceptance

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 7

propose that i-moments and protonarratives in a given case mayinteract with each other in different ways, throughout the process,leading to different outcomes in terms of self-narrative reconstruction.The alternative self-narrative may emerge from the dominance of aspecific protonarrative. Instead, it can also emerge from the coalitionor interaction between of two or more protonarratives.

Hence, we have developed a research strategy to track the alterna-tive protonarratives and analyse their development throughout time.In the remaining of our comment we will briefly present our researchstrategy and a case example.

Our research strategy involves three major steps of analysis: (1) identifying i-moments; (2) identifying alternative protonarratives;

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

8

Figure 2. Different levels of narrative development

Problematic self-narrative

i-moments

New i-moments

Protonarrative

Alternative self-narrative

The

rapy

evo

lutio

n

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 8

and (3) depicting and explaining the relation between these proto-narratives and i-moments throughout the process.

Identifying i-Moments

In the first step we use the Innovative Moments Coding System (IMCS;Gonçalves et al., 2009) to identify i-moments. IMCS allows identifyingfive types of i-moments of different natures and functions in the changeprocess: action, reflection, protest, re-conceptualization and perform-ing change (see Table 1). For the purpose of this work, it is sufficient tosay that when coders are identifying i-moments from transcripts, videoor audio recording of sessions they need to bear in mind what the mainfeatures of the problematic self-narrative (the rule) are in order to

Ribeiro et al. Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

9

Table 1. Examples of the Five Types of i-Moment

Type Contents Examples(Problematic narrative: depression)

Action• New coping behaviours facing C: Yesterday, I went to the cinema for

anticipated or existent obstacles; the first time in months!• Effective resolution of unsolved

problem(s);• Active exploration of solutions;• Restoring autonomy and self-control;• Searching for information about the

problem(s).

ReflectionCreating distance from the problem(s)• Comprehension – Reconsidering C: I realize that what I was doing was

problem(s)’ causes and/or awareness just, not humanly possible because I wasof its effects; pushing myself and I never allowed

• New problem(s) formulations; myself any free time, uh, to myself . . . • Adaptive self instructions and thoughts; and it’s more natural and more healthy • Intention to fight problem(s)’ demands, to let some of these extra activities go. . .

references of self-worth and/or feelings of well-being.

Centred on the change• Therapeutic Process – Reflecting about C: I believe that our talks, our sessions,

the therapeutic process; have proven fruitful, I felt like going • Change Process – Considering the back to old times a bit, it was good, I felt

process and strategies; implemented to good, I felt it was worth it.overcome the problem(s); references of self-worth and/or feelings of well-being (as consequences of change);

• New positions – references to new/emergent identity versions in face of the problem(s).

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 9

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

10

Table 1. continued

Type Contents Examples(Problematic narrative: depression)

ProtestCriticizing the problem(s)• Repositioning oneself towards the C: What am I becoming after all? Is this

problem(s). where I’ll be getting to? Am I going to stagnate here!?

Emergence of new positions• Positions of assertiveness and C: I am an adult and I am responsible

empowerment. for my life, and, and, I want to acknowledge these feelings and I´mgoing to let them out! I want toexperience life, I want to grow and itfeels good to be in charge of my ownlife.

Re-conceptualizationRe-conceptualization always involve two C: You know. . . when I was there at the dimensions: museum, I thought to myself: you really • Description of the shift between two are different. . . A year ago you wouldn’t

positions (past and present); be able to go to the supermarket! Ever • The process underlying this since I started going out, I started

transformation. feeling less depressed. . . it is also related to our conversations andchanging jobs. . .T: How did you have this idea of goingto the museum?C: I called my dad and told him: we’regoing out today!T: This is new, isn’t it?C: Yes, it’s like I tell you. . . I sense thatI’m different. . .

Performing Change• Generalization into the future and other T: You seem to have so many projects for

life dimensions of good outcome; the future now!• Problematic experience as a resource to C: Yes, you’re right. I want to do all the

new situations; things that were impossible for me to do • Investment in new projects as a result of while I was dominated by depression. I

the process of change; want to work again and to have the time • Investment in new relationships as a to enjoy my life with my children. I

result of the process of change; want to have friends again. The loss of • Performance of change: New skills; all the friendships from the past is • Re-emergence of neglected or forgotten something that still hurts me really

self-versions. deeply. I want to have friends again, to have people to talk to, to shareexperiences and to feel the complicity inmy life again.

Note. From The Innovative Moments Coding System: A coding procedure for tracking changesin psychotherapy, by M.M. Gonçalves, A.P. Ribeiro, et al. (in press). Adapted withpermission.

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 10

enable the identification of the exceptions toward that rule (i.e.,identification of i-moments). This step is guided by the question: ‘Whatis the central rule/framework of understanding?’ (See Gonçalves, Ribeiro,et al., in press, for a complete description of the steps involved.)

Identifying protonarrativesKeeping this definition in mind, we analyse the first i-moment andconsensually define the protonarrative underneath it. This step isguided by the question: ‘What is the potential counter-rule/framework ofunderstanding present in this i-moment? or in a different but equivalentformulation: ‘If this i-moment expands itself to a new self-narrative, whatwould be the rule that shapes this new narrative?’ We shall try to obtain theanswer to this question in the form of a sentence or a word. This defi-nition must be linked with the verbal material; that is, close to client’snarrative. Each new i-moment is then compared to the existingprotonarrative, looking for convergences and divergences. Wheneverstrong convergences are found, the focused i-moment is understood assharing the existing protonarrative. On the contrary, whenever strongdivergences are found, a new protonarrative is formulated in order toincorporate new meanings.

Along this process, the emergent protonarratives constantly undergomodification to incorporate new meanings and are continually inter-rogated for coherence and explanatory capacity. This process ceaseswhen the emergent protonarratives are dense and complex enough tocapture all of the variations in participants’ i-moments (Fassinger, 2005).

Depicting Relation between Protonarratives and i-MomentsThis third step involves the Space State Grid. State Space Grid is amethod, consistent with dynamic systems theory, developed by Lewis(Lewis, Lamey, & Douglas, 1999; Lewis, Zimmerman, Hollenstein, &Lamey, 2004) in the context of developmental psychology. This methodintends to provide a two-dimensional topographic representation ofsystem behavior along time. Figure 3 shows four examples of grids thatrepresent the development of system behaviour (i-moments –protonarratives) in the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth sessions. Eachcircle represents an i-moment and hollow circles represent the first i-moment in each of the sessions presented. The size of the circlesrepresents the duration (in seconds) of each i-moment. The lines repre-sent transitions from one i-moment to the next i-moment and thearrows represent the direction of that transition.

Ribeiro et al. Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

11

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 11

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

12

Figu

re 3

. Exa

mpl

es o

f Sta

te S

pace

Gri

ds fo

r th

e ca

se d

epic

ted

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 12

A Case ExampleCaroline was a 20-year-old woman at the time of her psychotherapyprocess, who reported as her main problems feelings of sadness, hope-lessness and worthlessness which impaired her interpersonal relation-ships and her academic functioning. Caroline was attended in brief andindividual constructivist therapy focused on implicative dilemmas(Fernandes, Senra, & Feixas, 2009) for 12 sessions and 1 follow-upsession, at her university’s clinic.

Caroline’s problematic self-narrative was defined as the ‘pessimism’rule, that is, the idea that whatever the efforts she would be engagedin she would never achieve positive results, and that she was notworthy (see Ribeiro, Bento, Gonçalves, & Salgado, 2009, for a completedescription of this case).

In this case three protonarratives were identified which were namedOptimism, Achievement, and Balance. Optimism protonarrativeemerged in second session; Achievement appeared later in session 4and Balance in session 6. We would like to highlight that narrativeprocesses in psychotherapy seem to unfold as a spiral in which eachnewer protonarrative seems to expand at each turn and incorporatethe characteristics of previous protonarratives. Thus Balance wasconstructed from the previous two protonarratives (and the problem-atic narrative), Achievement was constructed from Optimism, andclearly this last one was a direct reaction to the problematic narrative,challenging it by constructing the opposite meaning. However, thisprogressive movement is not a straight and cumulative one as theinterplay between newer and older protonarratives seems to beessential to the unfolding of this global process. The characteristicsemergent in new protonarratives become integrated in older ones andexpand them; this expansion in older protonarratives, by its turn,promotes the appearance of yet new features in newer proto-narratives. This process of mutual expansion of protonarrativesemergent from their interaction becomes clear if we observe the wayi-moments emerge in the different protonarratives. For example,action i-moments emerge for the first time in the therapeutic processin the context of Achievement protonarrative (session 6) and becomemore frequent and expanded in session 7 within the same proto-narrative. In session 8 action i-moments emerge for the first time inthe context of Optimism protonarrative. Until session 8 Optimismprotonarrative was characterized exclusively by protest and reflectioni-moments. Re-conceptualization is yet another example of thisprocess. It emerges for the first time in session 6 in the context ofBalance protonarrative, in session 9 it surges for the first time in the

Ribeiro et al. Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

13

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 13

context of Achievement protonarrative and in the next session in thecontext of Optimism for the first time.

Protonarratives also seem to vary in terms of the type of i-momentsthat constitute them. In terms of development across therapeuticprocess the last protonarrative to emerge is constituted by more typesof i-moments and by the types that are more complex and related tofuture prospects (re-conceptualization and performing change). Thissuggests that protonarratives have different structures and constituentsand that they change across time. As we have said, protonarratives arenarratives-in-change. For example, Optimism protonarrative starts witha structure characterized by protest and reflection i-moments and, asaction i-moments emerged in the context of Achievement protonarra-tive, its structure also changed to include action i-moments, and itchanged again to include re-conceptualization, after these i-momentshad emerged in the context of Balance protonarratives. A similarprocess takes place for the other protonarratives.

This description exemplifies not only the interaction between i-moments and protonarratives but also the interaction betweenprotonarratives and the structure of these interactions. In light of theobservations briefly sketched above, protonarratives are hypothesizedto operate by aggregating and consolidating the meanings of i-moments that are negotiated in the communicational interactionbetween therapist and client. These aggregates may be conceived aspossible narrative threads that are alternatives to problematic self-narrative. In this sense, protonarratives gain value as repositories ofmeaning possibilities that become available for further development of i-moments’ potential meaning. Protonarratives also seem to beunstable and with flexible boundaries separating them. In another way,we may say that although protonarratives temporarily stabilizemeaning from i-moments, they maintain their openness towardschange.

Conclusion

Our commentary on Cross (2010) focused on some of her contributionsto the study of narrative-dialogical processes from the perspective ofcomplexity. This was the departure point for reflecting upon the wayself-narrative reconstruction occurs in the context of psychotherapyand to present a research strategy to address this issue.

Although performing research in different domains, we share thesame theoretical frameworks—narrative theory, dialogism, anddynamic systems theory—and roughly the same general empirical

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

14

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 14

questions: the ‘role of narratives within ongoing identity formation’and the processes of ‘narrative functioning in dialogical activity’, to putit in Cross’s terms.

Narrative theory, dialogism, and dynamic systems theory operate ascentrifugal or divergent forces that are changing the ways psy-chologists think about and explore the phenomena they face. They areessentially theoretical and metatheoretical reactions to traditionalconvergent forces in psychology. As such, at the same time theypromote theoretical innovation, they highlight the inadequateness oftraditional methodological paraphernalia to the empirical work withsuch theories. Moreover, given their theoretical nature, theoreticaldevelopment occurs faster than its methodological counterpart andthis opens the space for the entrance of traditional methods, thuslimiting further theoretical and methodological development. In thisway, the discrepancy between theory and method may constitute aconservative force to centrifugal forces.

Cross’s (2010) analysis of students’ discussion clearly shows thelimitations of the traditional conceptualization of narrative as a repre-sentational device that organizes experience and makes it meaningful,for the study of narrative processes within dialogical activity. Thisconclusion is gaining increasing strength as several authors (e.g.,Mageo, 2002) are underlining the dynamic interplay between culturaland individual narrative elements and the intertextuality inherent toprotonarratives that constitute psychological domain.

Congruently with these authors’ efforts, we have developed asystematic research strategy to analyse different levels of narrativedevelopment in the context of the dialogical exchanges between thetherapist and the client, in a dynamic way. This strategy involvesidentifying i-moments, identifying protonarratives and depicting therelations between i-moments and protonarratives. Further research isneeded to test its empirical potential. Besides, some questions need tobe addressed, namely, how to grasp the relation between proto-narratives along the therapeutic process, And how to depict the relationbetween protonarratives and the emergent alternative self-narrative.

Acknowledgments

This article was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science andTechnology (FCT), by Grant PTDC/PSI/72846/2006 (Narrative Processes inPsychotherapy, 2007–2010) and by PhD Grants SFRH/BD/46189/2008 andSFRH/BD/48266/2008. Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Miguel M. Gonçalves, School of Psychology, University ofMinho, 4710 Braga, Portugal. Email: [email protected]

Ribeiro et al. Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

15

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 15

Note

1. It is important to note that different authors have suggested differentconcepts under the name of protonarrative. For instance, Salvatore,Dimaggio, and Semerari (2004) define protonarrative as ‘micro-sequencesof mental images continuously occupying our Consciousness’ (p. 236).Instead, according to Turner (1996, p. 13, as quoted by Sundararajan, 2008,p. 244) protonarrative refers to as ‘small stories, background events that areseemingly neutral in affect’ (p. 13).

References

Boje, D. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communicational research.London: Sage.

Boje, D. (2004). Antenarratives, narratives, and anaemic stories. Paper presentedat the meeting of the Academy of Management, August 9, 2004, New Orleans, LA.

Boje, D., & Rosile, G. (2003). Life imitates art: Enron’s epic and tragicnarration. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 85–125.

Boje, D., Rosile, G., Durant, R., & Luhman, J. (2004). Enron spectacles: A critical dramaturgical analysis. Organization Studies, 25(5), 751–774.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Cross, B. (2010). The interface work of narrative. Culture & Psychology, 16(2),xxx-xxx.

Dimaggio, G., & Semerari, A. (2001). Psychopathological narrative forms.Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14, 1–23.

Fassinger, R. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise: Groundedtheory in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology,52, 156–166.

Fernandes, E., Senra, E., & Feixas, G. (2009). Terapia construtivista centrada emdilemas implicativos [Constructivist psychotherapy focused on implicativedilemmas]. Braga: Psiquilíbrios.

Gonçalves, M.M., Matos, M., & Santos, A. (2009). Narrative therapy and thenature of ‘innovative moments’ in the construction of change. Journal ofConstructivist Psychology, 22, 1–23.

Gonçalves, M.M., Ribeiro, A.P., Matos, M., Santos, A., & Mendes, I. (in press).The Innovative Moments Coding System: A coding procedure for trackingchanges in psychotherapy. In S. Salvatore, J. Valsiner, S. Strout, & J. Clegg(Eds.), YIS: Yearbook of idiographic science 2009 – Volume 2. Rome: FireraPublishing Group.

Gonçalves, M.M., Ribeiro, A.P., Stiles, W.B., Conde, T., Santos, A., Matos, M., &Martins, C. (2009). The role of mutual in-feeding in maintaining problematicself-stability. Manuscript in preparation.

Gonçalves, M.M., Santos, A., Salgado, J., Matos, M., Mendes, I., Ribeiro, A.P.,Cunha, C., & Gonçalves, J. (in press). Innovations in psychotherapy:Tracking the narrative construction of change. In J. D. Raskin, S.K. Bridges,

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

16

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 16

& R. Neimeyer (Eds.), Studies in meaning 4: Constructivist perspectives ontheory, practice, and social justice. New York: Pace University Press.

Gone, J., Miller, P., & Rappaport, J. (1999). Conceptual self as normativelyoriented: The suitability of past personal narrative for the study of culturalidentity. Culture & Psychology, 5, 371–398.

Lewin, P. (1997, November). The ethical self in the play of affect and voice. Paperpresented at the After Postmodernism conference, University of Chicago.Available at http://www.focusing.org/Lewin.html

Lewis, M.D., Lamey, A.V., & Douglas, L. (1999). A new dynamic systemsmethod for the analysis of early socioemotional development. DevelopmentalScience, 2, 458–476.

Lewis, M.D., Zimmerman, S., Hollenstein, T., & Lamey, A.V. (2004).Reorganization in coping behavior at 1 1/2 years: Dynamic systems andnormative change. Developmental Science, 7, 56–73.

McAdams, D.P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of theself. New York: William Morrow.

Mageo, J. (2002). Intertextual interpretation, fantasy and Samoan dreams.Culture & Psychology, 8, 417–448.

Mandler, J. (1984). Scripts, stories, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Marcos, M. (2001). Sujeito e comunicação: Perspectiva tensional da alteridade[Subject and communication: A tensional perspective on alterity]. Coimbra,Portugal: Campo das Letras.

Matos, M., Santos, A., Gonçalves, M.M., & Martins, C. (2009). Innovativemoments and change in narrative therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 68–80.

Mendes, J. (2001). Porquê tantas histórias: O lugar do ficcional na aventura humana[Why so many stories: The place of the fictional in human adventure]. Coimbra,Portugal: Minerva.

Neimeyer, R.A. (2004). Fostering posttraumatic growth: A narrativecontribution. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 53–59.

Nelson, K. (2000). Narrative, time, and the emergence of the encultured self.Culture & Psychology, 6, 183–196.

Prado, C. (1984). Making believe: Philosophical reflection on fiction. Connecticut:Greenwood Press.

Rasmussen, S. (1999). Culture, personhood and narrative: The problem ofnorms and agency. Culture & Psychology, 5, 399–412.

Ribeiro, A.P., Bento, T., Gonçalves, M.M., & Salgado, J. (2009). A dynamic lookat narrative change in psychotherapy: A case-study using State Space Grid.Manuscript in preparation.

Ribeiro, A.P., & Gonçalves, M.M. (2010). Innovation and stability within thedialogical self: The centrality of ambivalence. Culture & Psychology, 16(1),116–126.

Salvatore, G., Dimaggio, G., & Semerari, A. (2004). A model of narrativedevelopment: Implications for understanding psychopathology andguiding therapy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,77, 231–254.

Salvatore, S., Gelo, O., Gennaro, A., Manzo, S., Al-Radaideh, A. (in press).Looking at the psychotherapy process as an intersubjective dynamic of

Ribeiro et al. Levels of Narrative Development in Psychotherapy

17

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 17

meaning-making. A case study with Discourse Flow Analysis. Journal ofConstructivist Psychology.

Sundararajan, L. (2008). The plot thickens – or not: Protonarratives ofemotions and the Chinese principle of savouring. Journal of HumanisticPsychology, 48, 243–263.

Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind: The origins of thought and language. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Vaihinger, H. (1935). The philosophy of ‘As if ‘. London: Kegan Paul, Trench &Trubner.

Valsiner, J. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in humandevelopment. Human Development, 44, 84–97.

White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York: Norton.White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York:

Norton.

Biographies

ANTÓNIO P. RIBEIRO is a student of the PhD Program in ClinicalPsychology at University of Minho (Braga, Portugal) with a PhD scholarshipfrom the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT—Portuguese Foundationfor Science and Technology: reference SFRH/BD/46189/2008). His currentresearch interests are theoretically focused in narrative and dialogicalperspectives and their application to change processes in psychotherapy.

TIAGO BENTO is a PhD student in Clinical Psychology at CINEICC/ISMAI(Maia, Portugal) with a PhD grant from the Portuguese Foundation forScience and Technology (FCT; reference SFRH/BD/48266/2008). His researchinterests are narrative and dialogical selfhood processes and their applicationto psychotherapy change processes.

MIGUEL M. GONÇALVES is Associate Professor at the School of Psychologyin the University of Minho (Braga, Portugal). He has been interested indialogical and narrative studies of the self and in narrative psychotherapy. Heis presently developing a research project on the role that narrativeinnovations play in the promotion of psychotherapeutic change. ADDRESS:Miguel M. Gonçalves, University of Minho, Portugal, School of Psychology,Campus de Gualtar, Braga, P-4700, Portugal. [email: [email protected]]

JOÃO SALGADO is the Director of the Masters’ Degree in Clinical and HealthPsychology at ISMAI, Portugal. He is also a psychotherapist and the Directorof the Counseling Service of his University. His main research interests areassociated with the theoretical and methodological developments of adialogical perspective within psychology, and with the applications of thisframework to the field of psychotherapy and clinical psychology.

Culture & Psychology 16(2)

18

CAP361400 2/3/10 09:26 Page 18