Download Systemic Family Therapy and Social Constructionist and more Study notes Social Work in PDF only on Docsity!
Author Response 123
Anna Tickle and Michael Rennoldson
8 Systemic Family Therapy
Systemic family therapy has evolved across geographical locations since the early 1950s. Clinically, it developed in the context of a number of therapeutic movements, including child guidance clinics, marriage counselling, and sex therapy. Whilst it is theoretically rooted in the interdisciplinary field of systems theory, or cybernet- ics, systemic family therapy has prided itself upon its development from practice to theory. It has also been open to influence from a heterogeneous range of other psy- chotherapeutic approaches and wider intellectual currents. Distinct phases of devel- opment are often identified, within which more specific schools have emerged, fre- quently connected with specific practitioners or clinics. These are outlined in detail elsewhere (e.g., Dallos & Draper, 2010). We present a brief overview of some of these schools before focusing on an integration of enduring systemic ideas that character- ises contemporary systemic practice, especially in the UK (Vetere & Dallos, 2003). We use ‘systemic family therapy’, ‘family therapy’, and ‘systemic practice’ interchange- ably to refer to therapeutic practice based upon systemic principles; other therapies delivered to family groups based upon different theoretical principles (for example behavioural family therapy; Falloon, 1988) are not discussed here. Key systemic approaches include:
- Structural family therapy , largely developed by Salvador Minuchin (e.g., 1974) and colleagues in New York in the late 1950s and 1960s.
- Strategic family therapy , developed initially during the late 1960s and 1970s at the Mental Research Institute (MRI) in Palo Alto, California. Key figures included Don Jackson, John Weakland, and Paul Watzlawick (e.g., Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). Strategic approaches were further developed during the late 1970s and 1980s in Milan by a group including Mara Selvini Palazzoli, Luigi Boscolo, Gianfranco Cecchin, and Guiliana Prata (e.g., Selvini Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1980). Later, the group divided and ‘post-Milan’ approaches were devel- oped (e.g., Cecchin, 1987).
- Social constructionist approaches began to influence systemic therapy from the late 1980s onwards. This influence is particularly evident in narrative therapy, developed in the 1990s by Michael White from Australia and David Epston from New Zealand.
- Solution Focused Brief Therapy also sits within systemic approaches. It was devel- oped during the 1980s by Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg, and colleagues in the Milwaukee Brief Family Therapy Centre.
124 Systemic Family Therapy
8.1 The Central Tenets of Systemic Family Therapy
8.1.1 Systems Theory
The interdisciplinary study of systems theory (Von Bertalanffy, 1950) underpins family therapy. It is this theoretical framework, alongside an emphasis upon working with several people at once, that distinguishes family therapy from other therapeu- tic approaches. Systems theory assumes that the behaviour of a system can only be understood by considering the individual characteristics of elements within the system, and the relationship between these elements. Families are ‘systems’ of people, which in turn relate to wider social systems. As individual experience is seen as fun- damentally interpersonal, rather than intrapersonal (Vetere & Dallos, 2003), psycho- logical distress is viewed as being intimately bound up with relationships (Dallos & Draper, 2010). Any particular ‘problem’ is not seen as a problem per se , but part of a larger process involving many other people, behaviours, and meanings (Campbell, Coldicott, & Kinsella, 1994). This contrasts with many psychotherapeutic approaches which focus primarily on the individual’s intrapsychic experience. That said, intrap- ersonal experience is not denied: Minuchin (1974) suggested that the structural family therapist could be compared to a technician with a zoom lens, who could zoom in to study the individual’s intrapsychic experience but could also observe with a broader focus on the system. Several fundamental cybernetic ideas have endured throughout the history of systemic family therapy. There is an interest in how different members of a family communicate with each other: what and how things are expressed, and what goes unexpressed. Communication is the principal means by which different members of a system relate to each other and therefore a key area for intervention. Systemic family therapists are also reliably interested in the (in)stability of systems. ‘Stuckness’ or change are as likely to be the product of the flow of communication or informa- tion between parts of a system as of the intrinsic properties of any one person or part (Selvini Palazzoli et al., 1980). Finally, because specific behaviours and experiences are viewed as the collective achievement of many parts of a system, causation is con- sidered to be circular rather than linear. This means that a cause cannot be traced backwards in a linear or reductionist fashion to an original source, meaning that any solutions to an apparent problem do not need to tackle the problem ‘at source’, but can be found in many places in a system; successful change is therefore achieved through the spiralling effects of feedback throughout the system (Penn, 1982). Fami- lies and therapists often seek the satisfaction and certainty of a linear explanation for problems, but this carries the risk of closing down opportunities for change that lie in unexpected places (Cecchin, 1987).
126 Systemic Family Therapy
reach their final destination of complete understanding of their clients, as the not-yet- said is infinite (Rober, 1999). Unlike some other approaches, family therapy does not have a range of pre-deter- mined, problem-specific formulation models, although each of the schools offers specific ideas for formulating and intervening. There are no clear and detailed guide- lines for family therapists to follow (Dallos & Draper, 2010), but rather a number of ‘reference points’ that might guide hypotheses (Boscolo & Bertrando, 1996). These are grounded in relevant theory, including ideas about attachment, power, and gender. Ideas about transitions in family boundaries (e.g., Wood & Talmon, 1983) and attach- ments (e.g., Byng-Hall, 2008) also offer frameworks for thinking about why difficul- ties arise within families.
8.1.4 Theories About ‘Problems’
While all systemic approaches share the quite abstract principles described above, they vary significantly in the more concrete or mid-level concepts that they use to hypothesise why problems emerge within systems and how change might happen. These include behavioural patterns, belief systems, or emotional patterns within the family system, and the relationship between the family and wider cultural and politi- cal contexts (Vetere & Dallos, 2003). Systemic family therapists therefore draw upon a rich and diverse range of ideas, change might take place at a number of inter-related levels, and the formulation may well depend on the level of change that the therapist and family are working to create.
8.1.5 Structural Concepts
Structural perspectives focus on the organisation of family, including hierarchies and subsystems within the family, boundaries, rules, members’ roles, and transac- tional patterns (Vetere, 2001). Family ‘function’ or ‘dysfunction’ would be determined according to how well or otherwise the family structure serves the developmental needs of the family members, and ‘symptomatic behaviour’ would be viewed as relat- ing to some form of dysfunctional organisation (Colapinto, 1988). However, it is also assumed that the family has the competence to draw on inter- and intra-personal resources to bring about change, supported by the therapist (Vetere, 2001). The aim of therapy from a structural perspective is therefore to change the organisation of bound- aries and related closeness or distance between family members and subsystems, in order to change each individual member’s experience (Minuchin, 1974). The therapist aims to achieve this by supporting what is going well in the family, and joining family members to create changes in structures that are sustainable by challenging symp- tomatic behaviour, family structure, and/or family belief systems (Vetere, 2001).
The Central Tenets of Systemic Family Therapy 127
8.1.6 Strategic Concepts
Strategic family therapy is so called because the therapist designs strategies in order to create change (Rosen, 2003). Within this approach, people are seen as inherently ‘strategic’ in attempting to influence each other, and problems are viewed as being embedded in repetitive interactional patterns (Dallos & Draper, 2010). Problems may be formulated as having a function within the system, such as maintaining system stability, and within therapy the therapist may ‘reframe’ the problem in terms of con- sidering what function a particular problem might serve for members of the family. An enduring strategic idea is that families may attempt to solve problems, but that repeatedly used ineffective solutions maintain problems, or give rise to new prob- lems. When families present for help, it is often the ineffective solution, rather than the original problem, that is causing most difficulty. The aim of strategic approaches is to create behavioural change by disrupting unhelpful interactional patterns that inadvertently function to maintain the problem. The therapist contributes to the change process by encouraging experimentation to creatively solve challenges in novel ways, as well as encouraging what might be usually discouraged within the family, and emphasising and encouraging the clients’ competence (Keim, 2012). The therapist might use a broad range of strategies and techniques designed to influence the specific family system. A range of example interventions are offered by Smith, Ruzgyte, and Spinks (2011).
8.1.7 Social Constructionist Concepts
The influence of social constructionism gave rise to even greater emphasis within family therapy on the role of language and multiple layers of context in creating and maintaining psychological distress. This emphasis owes a particular debt to the social constructionist argument that language, to a significant degree, constrains what can be thought and communicated about difficulties, and acts to help constitute subjec- tive experience. Change within therapy was therefore seen to be brought about by the evolution of new meaning through dialogue (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988). The ‘story’ metaphor has had particular influence. This suggests that the ‘problem satu- rated’ stories that families frequently carry about their difficulties, whilst appearing to be convincing explanations, also serve to obscure possibilities for change. Thera- pists are concerned with assisting families to author alternative accounts of their lives that open up possibilities for change in action and experience.
Critique 129
Nevertheless, as the political climate of service provision has changed, there has been exponential growth in research during the past three decades (Sprenkle, 2012) and increasing interest in practitioners conducting research (e.g., Williams, Patter- son, & Edwards, 2014). There is now evidence that family therapy can be effective for a wide range of difficulties across the life span (Stratton, 2005), although there remain significant gaps in empirical evidence for widely used approaches, including narra- tive therapy (Heatherington et al., 2005). Qualitative evidence has also begun emerg- ing regarding families’ experiences of therapy (e.g., Chenail et al., 2012). The evi- dence for one particular type of family therapy over another remains equivocal. Why family therapy works, or when and under what circumstances, remains “shrouded in mystery”, and there is little to refute the hypothesis that family therapy works because of common mechanisms of change across all approaches (Sprenkle, 2012, p. 25). These common factors include conceptualising difficulties in relational terms, working to disrupt dysfunctional relational patterns, expanding the direct treatment system, and expanding the therapeutic alliance (Sprenkle, Davis, & Lebow, 2009), and support an argument for the integrated approach outlined above. It is also impor- tant that research evidence in isolation does not determine clinical decisions made by therapists, who should integrate the evidence-base with the culture, values, and preferences of clients, and their own clinical expertise, in order to deliver competent therapy (Chenail, 2013).
8.4 Critique
In a certain sense, systemic family therapy has been its own strongest critic. One reason for the fractured evolution of this approach is the willingness of practitioners to criticise their particular school, and draw upon a range of ideas to inform these criticisms. Implicit assumptions about ‘normal families’ underpinning earlier struc- tural approaches, ethical concerns that a therapist might seek to be ‘neutral’ when particular family members may be oppressing or abusing other family members, and other aspects of family therapy have been critically and rightfully scrutinised (Dallos & Draper, 2010). However, many of the attributes of systemic family therapy described above might be considered potentially problematic, either as a basis for formulation, or more widely as a school of psychotherapy demanding a significant place within psychological healthcare. The emphasis upon the inter-personal certainly appears to have resulted in an under-theorisation of intra-psychic phenomena, and the lack of models to explain the aetiology and development of specific problems, whilst con- sistent with a systemic epistemology, means family therapists must work from broad principles rather than a precise ‘recipe’. This perhaps compares unfavourably with the testability and consistency offered by increasingly prescriptive cognitive-behav- ioural approaches to formulation and therapy, and potentially carries the risk that
130 Systemic Family Therapy
family therapy constructs and interventions can be used by some clinicians in an inef- fective or theoretically contradictory manner. Clinical work with multiple persons and teams of therapists may also be alien to clients expecting an individual approach, and the use of teams of therapists might be considered costly by service commissioners. However, research examining the costs of such approaches at the two-year follow-up stage suggests that family therapy is no more costly, and may be substantially less costly, than other therapies (Stratton, 2011).
8.5 Formulation in Action
Below, we illustrate the process of formulation in three stages. First we consider our initial responses to the case. Second, we describe an ‘analysis’ of some potential sys- temic hypotheses following the five areas described above. Finally, we present a dis- tilled ‘synthesis’ of these ideas. In keeping with the use of self and reflexivity in family therapy, we gave thought to the information that appeared most salient to each of us individually, considered our initial positions in relation to different members of the family, and how these might create ‘blind spots’ or potential biases during formulation and therapy. Anna’s initial thoughts were as follows: I was struck by the apparent lack of affirmation Molly received from her parents, in contrast to my own experiences as a daughter. Molly’s wish to make her parents proud because of their emphasis on success was in common with my own wish to make my parents proud through achievement. However, I was fortunate to draw on emotional and practical resources from my parents. Initially, I found it difficult not to align myself with Molly ‘against’ her parents for expecting her to succeed, but seeming to ‘fail’ to provide the foundations from which she could achieve. I would need to remain cognisant of this within sessions in order not to privilege her perspec- tive over that of her parents. I also have strong feelings against the medicalisation of distress; I was conscious that I felt angry that it seemed the systems around Molly may be more willing to frame her as ‘histrionic’ or ‘ill’, rather than consider how sexual abuse or familial and social circumstances may have contributed to her distress. Mike’s initial thoughts were as follows:
I was curious about when (if ever) relationship difficulties had not been such a significant part of Molly’s life. On first reading the case summary, a ‘problem saturated’ story of Molly’s life seems unavoidable. Her descriptions of relationship difficulties and disappointments at various stages of her life make this appear to be a long-standing and continuous problem. Her experience of being sexually abused and the lack of a supportive response to this might well account for some of these difficulties. However, this story might risk neglecting important contextual aspects of each significant relationship experience, although I’m aware that this response might constitute ‘wishful thinking’ on my part, and inquiring after ‘exceptions’ to troubling experiences must never be allowed to be construed as a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of a person’s dif-
132 Systemic Family Therapy
we would not seek to dismiss individualised conceptualisations of Molly’s difficul- ties, but to open up the possibility that Molly’s difficulties may be both located in her (through their construction within the language of the system) and relational in their origin and maintenance. There do appear to be some exceptions to Molly’s difficulties, including: success at school; forming relationships (both with men and colleagues); gaining employ- ment; initially enjoying living independently in her flat and being motivated; and some positive relationships with staff during her inpatient stay. Further, some of the problematic processes identified below might very well be intended to solve other problems. Any such exceptions or good intentions might be drawn upon in both the development of hypotheses and during interventions, but remain undeveloped and relatively untouched at the stage of assessment.
8.5.2 Problem-maintaining Patterns and Feedback Loops
Here, we would be interested in considering the structures of the family and any repeti- tive behavioural patterns based on feedback loops within the system (Vetere & Dallos, 2003). Drawing on structural family theory, it could be suggested that the boundaries between family members seem to be rigid to the point of disconnection (Minuchin, 1974), and have led to a perceived lack of emotional connectedness between family members. However, in light of Anna’s aforementioned reflections, it would be impor- tant to understand the boundaries of the family from the perspective of each of its members, rather than imposing the therapist’s own, potentially biased, perspective. We would not argue that the kind of family structure described by Molly is always problematic, but that in some circumstances there is a poor fit. In Molly’s case, this structure might have significantly reduced the family’s ability to respond to her experience of sexual abuse in a constructive fashion. Indeed, Molly herself reported feeling constrained from disclosing the abuse, and her family appear not to have been alert to any changes in emotion or behaviour that Molly most likely experienced after the abuse. The family organisation may have compounded these difficulties later. The tran- sition out of the family home to university was difficult for Molly. Transitions such as a child leaving home are often stressful for the system, and the family will some- times respond by clinging to old roles and patterns (Wood & Talmon, 1983). In addi- tion, there is evidence that parent-daughter boundaries are connected to young adult females’ development of an independent identity (Fullinwider-Bush & Jacobvitz, 1993). Molly attempted to follow a ‘normative’ path of going to university, but “failed” to take this step towards autonomy, relative to both the family norms and expecta- tions (achieved by her sister), and broader social norms. It may be that this context perpetuated the organisational family pattern of Molly being identified as “overly emotional” by other family members.
Formulation in Action 133
The primary feedback loop we would be interested in focusing on relates to Molly’s expression of emotion and need for closeness, and the apparent consequen- tial rejection by others, which may lead to an escalation in both distress and rejec- tion. An alternative is for Molly to suppress the expression of her emotional needs, but this may lead to other manifestations of distress. We also considered a feedback loop in which Molly aims to please others but has never quite succeeded or ‘failed enough’; her successes have not been sufficient to achieve the kind of recognition she seeks from her parents (in particular), but neither has she failed sufficiently to prompt experimentation with other goals or life plans. Two other possible feedback loops were identified that might be of relevance, but which will not be the key focus of the present formulation. The first related to Molly’s difficulties having sexual relationships, leading her to avoid intimacy. This in turn may lead others to view her as not seeking intimacy, thus maintaining the diffi- culty by reducing opportunities to develop sexual relationships. The second related to Molly withholding information about being sexually abused from her family through fear of ‘wrecking the family’. The family is therefore denied the possibility to respond in any way, maintaining Molly’s fear and anticipation of a catastrophic response, and potentially facilitating further withholding of information.
8.5.3 Beliefs and Explanations
We would also explore different levels of beliefs about the problem and what should be done about it, including family members’ perceptions, and socio-cultural beliefs and discourses from outside of the family (Vetere & Dallos, 2003). There appears to be congruence between Molly’s belief that she is not coping, and the family belief that she is ‘over emotional’. These beliefs might also link with discourses in mental health services about individuals who may be discussed as having a ‘personality disorder’. The interaction between these beliefs at different levels may contribute to a dominant story that the problem is located within Molly, and is related to her personal failings, rather than having a relational aetiology. It is striking that these explanations do not draw upon Molly’s experience of sexual abuse and the lack of a protective response to this. Further, these explanations do not really account for exceptions when Molly has been able to function well and relate to others.
8.5.4 Emotions and Attachments
In deconstructing the problem, we were particularly drawn to the hypothesis that expressions of emotion were discouraged within the family and that Molly’s emo- tional expression led her to be viewed as “overly emotional”. This is a pattern that appears to have occurred in Molly’s other relationships, and in the initial response
Formulation in Action 135
The problem may escalate as Molly experiences increased distress in response to rejection, or expresses her emotional needs in other ways (including some of the behaviours she sees as problematic), which may in turn lead to further actual or antic- ipated rejection. Molly’s experience of sexual abuse, and her fear of rejection if this is disclosed, may also contribute to this problem-maintaining feedback loop. However, it is important to note that the formulation remains tentative and could change significantly when different perspectives from other family members are put forward.
8.5.7 Intervention Objectives
The objective of the therapy would be to achieve positive change for Molly in the areas that she has identified. However, in keeping with the wide range of options available for change within systemic practice, the ‘specific’ mechanisms of change are poten- tially still broad – creating change in any of the behavioural patterns, belief systems, or emotional patterns within the family system and in the relationship between the family and wider cultural and political contexts (Vetere & Dallos, 2003). Given the complexity of even small social systems, how change unfolds must be regarded as uncertain. Rather than prescribing precise targets for change, formulation in systemic practice suggests areas for therapists to focus upon. Skilfully done, these therapeutic efforts will incite changes in patterns of communication, belief, and behaviour in the areas of most concern to the family. Ultimately, Molly and her family must determine whether the objective of achiev- ing positive change has been met. In systemic practice families are frequently invited to comment on whether any progress is being made. ‘Scaling questions’ are a well- known technique of monitoring progress towards problem resolution, using a ten- point scale (Berg & de Shazer, 1993). To aid the measurement of change, we could also use a well-established contemporary measure of family functioning and change, such as the SCORE-15 – derived from the original SCORE-40 (Stratton, Bland, Janes, & Lask, 2010, see aft.org.uk/view/score.html).
136 Systemic Family Therapy
8.5.8 Intervention Plan
In keeping with a systemic approach, here we identify our starting point for therapy and likely approach to the work. Anything more specific would assume that our ideas and practice would not change across the therapy, which is certainly not the case. A systemic intervention would most likely face two initial challenges: firstly, joining with the family to promote a family level solution to something that is per- ceived to be an individual’s problem; and secondly, beginning the work with a sys- temic hypothesis that challenges key family beliefs. Our starting point would be to invite the whole family into a therapy session, if they were willing, in order to focus on the relational aspects of Molly’s difficulties. As therapists, we would aim to create a secure therapeutic base for the family; the initial session may last an hour and a half or more, to “allow time for difficult issues to emerge with some intensity and have some chance of being addressed” (Byng-Hall, 2008, p. 138). Molly would also need to be given individual time, apart from her family, to consider how and when her experi- ence of abuse may, or may not, be discussed. A range of question types would be used within sessions to facilitate ‘interventive interviewing’ (Tomm, 1988) – a style of asking therapeutic questions that potentially fosters change in a system. Lineal questions would be used first in order to establish the definition of the problems from the perspective of each family member. Circular questions would then be used more frequently to compel the family to experience the circularity of their family system, to shift away from more linear stances, leading to increased perceived membership of the problem (Penn, 1982). This would open up the possibility for new stories to develop within the family system based on familial patterns rather than “truths” and facts (Cecchin, 1987). We would also be interested in identifying patterns or scripts within the family that highlight how family roles have developed (Byng-Hall, 2008), and may use genograms of wider family relationships to reveal broader patterns (McGoldrick, Gerson, & Petry, 2008). If within-session exploration supported the initial formulation outlined above, the aim of therapy would be to disrupt these patterns by focusing on both how Molly expresses her emotional needs, and how others respond to her. In addition to the above, we might make use of strategic questions, which are designed to influence the client or family in a specific way, in this case by reducing the likelihood of them con- tinuing along the same problematic path (Tomm, 1988). Reflexive questions would also be used to encourage the family to generate their own connections and solu- tions in their own manner and time (Tomm, 1988). By generating alternative ways of behaving, and fostering alternative beliefs about the behaviour within the family system, we would be optimistic that beneficial therapeutic change would be forth- coming. However, if change within the system was difficult to enact, we would revisit our hypotheses and formulation in order to identify any crucial information we may have missed, and reflect on any assumptions that were made that may have been erro- neous or that led to a less effective way of working with this particular family system.
138 Systemic Family Therapy
biases. It may be that these are gendered reactions or that they are simply represen- tative of two of the repertoires at the therapist’s disposal – feeling and thinking. It is plausible, however, that they might pick up a tension within Molly, between her emotional needs and her wish to please by intellectual achievement, as later alluded to in the description of the ‘primary feedback loop’. Such an intrapsychic experience would of course be played out in, and reciprocally strengthened by, its interpersonal parallels. To explore this possibility further, we wish that the authors had drawn on the two other repertoires available to them – acting and relating. It would have been good to have had access to the dialogue between them, exploring their different reac- tions rather than filing them away as potential sources of trouble. Having two (or more) people interacting in responding to the same material is a valuable resource between co-therapists or in a reflective team; it might have equally helped to deepen the reader’s access to the systemic formulations. This could have also led us into a dis- cussion of intersubjectivity (to what extent the drawing of the map creates the terri- tory), which should be a particular strength of the systemic approach and an area that other viewpoints could learn from. Though an area of debate among psychodynamic therapists, it is not usually addressed within the literature on ISTDP. Most notably, we were struck by the relative neglect of specific emotions in the formulations. It is not clear whether in systemic approaches emotions would be seen purely as epiphenomena, as in behavioural theory, or regarded as central, as they would be in process-experiential and psychodynamic approaches. ‘Emotions and attachments’ had been listed as one of the five areas that an integrated model of sys- temic formulation would need to pay attention to, but it appears that they are not an important component in this chapter, maybe mirroring Molly’s family and their atti- tudes towards emotional expressiveness. ‘Distress’ is a rather imprecise description for a reaction that may encompass anger, sadness, disgust, shame, guilt, humiliation, and fear, among others. One might argue that such feelings are intrapsychic expe- riences and therefore outside the purview of an interactional perspective; however, such a position would overlook the concept of emotions being reciprocally deter- mined, either in a symmetrical or complementary fashion, as first postulated by inter- personal theorists. Finally, we would want to acknowledge the broad areas of overlap between our outlook and the systemic perspective. Critical reviews invite the ‘narcissism of small differences’ that often characterises the exchanges between the different therapeutic tribes. Research evidence tells us that theoretical orientation has a negligible influ- ence on outcome variance, but as clinicians we need the containment that a coherent perspective affords us when faced with the uncertainties and challenges of our daily practice. We hope the dialogue in this chapter and this book helps all of us to broaden our repertoires – emotional, relational, cognitive, and behavioural – when we engage in psychological therapies.
Author Response 139
Anna Tickle & Michael Rennoldson
8.7 Author Response
We would like to signal our agreement with the key sentiment of the critique; that we have far more in common than apart. When focussing upon our differences, the ISTDP authors have identified in our formulation an absence that is arguably seen across much, though not all, systemic thought and practice – namely a lack of a precise classification of emotion. One poten- tial response that we might adopt as systemic practitioners is to make greater efforts to incorporate interpersonal theories of emotion, such as attachment theory or ideas from the psychodynamic tradition. However, we are drawn to a different response that reflects another point of difference identified in the critique. Many contemporary systemic practitioners do believe that the map ‘creates’ the territory. That is to say, the ideas and words we use to name and interpret experience become constitutive of that experience. From this flows a reluctance to name or specify emotion at the level of detail promoted within ISTDP at the stage of formulation. Rather, we might invite Molly and other family members to ‘name’ these experiences for themselves. Differ- ences identified between family members in conceptualising emotional experiences would be seen not as problematic, but as a potential resource for therapeutic change. At this stage in the formulation, the feedback loop that offers a general interactional pattern relating to emotional expression could be a starting point from which to iden- tify situations or examples in which specific emotions could be named and discussed. The critique also encouraged greater use of research to investigate both outcome and process. There is undoubtedly a need for systemic practice to develop a much more substantial body of process and outcome research. However, finding a form of credible and purposeful research that remains consistent with an interest in multiple perspectives and a model of circular causation is a challenge. We also agree that it would have been useful for us to present some of the dia- logue between us about our initial responses to the material, although our rationale for this would be different to that suggested. The critique saw it as plausible that our two different reactions – one more ‘emotional’, the other more ‘cognitive’ – might represent a tension within Molly. From our perspective, the different reactions would not be seen to reflect the internal state(s) of the client, but instead to reflect the ‘use of self’ encouraged within systemic therapy. Observing intersubjectivity in action could have given insight into how multiple perspectives might shape a systemic formula- tion, including potential benefits of different therapists’ world views compensating for each other’s ‘blind spots’. Equally, it could raise some questions about the interac- tional patterns and issues between team members, such as whether some are seen to hold more power and influence than others and potential reasons for this.
References 141
Rober, P. (2011). The therapist’s experiencing in family therapy practice. Journal of Family Therapy, 33 (3), 233-255. Rosen, K. H. (2003). Strategic family therapy. In L. J. Hecker & J. L. Wetchler (Eds.), An introduction to marriage and family therapy. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis. Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing—circularity— neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family Process, 19 (1), 3-12. Smith, T. N., Ruzgyte, E., & Spinks, D. (2011). Strategic Family Therapy. In L. Metcalf (Ed.), Marriage and Family Therapy: A Practice-Oriented Approach (pp. 255-286). New York: Springer Publishing Company. Sprenkle, D. H. (2012). Intervention research in couple and family therapy: A methodological and substantive review and an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38 (1), 3-29. Sprenkle, D. H., Davis, S. D., & Lebow, J. L. (2009). Common factors in couple and family therapy: The overlooked foundation for effective practice. London: Guilford Press. Stratton, P. (2005). Report on the evidence base of systemic family therapy. UK: Association for Family Therapy. Stratton, P. (2011). The evidence base of systemic family and couples therapies. UK: Association for Family Therapy. Stratton, P., Bland, J., Janes, E., & Lask, J. (2010). Developing an indicator of family function and a practicable outcome measure for systemic family and couple therapy: The SCORE. Journal of Family Therapy, 32 (3), 232-258. Sundet, R. (2011). Collaboration: Family and therapist perspectives of helpful therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37 (2), 236-249. Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strategic, or reflexive questions? Family Process, 27 (1), 1-15. Vetere, A. (2001). Structural family therapy. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6 (03), 133-139. Vetere, A., & Dallos, R. (2003). Working Systemically with Families: Formulation, Intervention and Evaluation. London: Karnac. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1 , 139-164. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change; Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: W. W. Norton. Williams, L., Patterson, J., & Edwards, T. M. (2014). Clinician’s Guide to Research Methods in Family Therapy: Foundations of Evidence-Based Practice. London: Guilford Publications. Wood, B., & Talmon, M. (1983). Family boundaries in transition: A search for alternatives. Family Process, 22 (3), 347-357.
