Recent Changes

Monday, July 3

Wednesday, June 21

Friday, May 12

Monday, May 8

  1. page Collaborative languaging therapy edited ... Carleton, D., Duvall, J., & Tremblay, C. (2016) Reengaging History with Harlene Anderson:…
    Carleton, D., Duvall, J., & Tremblay, C. (2016) Reengaging History with Harlene
    Anderson: Nosey Rosie Goes! Part II. Journal of Systemic Therapy, 35 (1), 61-77.
    on the 1970’s1970s when she
    (view changes)
    5:25 am
  2. page Collaborative languaging therapy edited ... {…
    {} Harlene Anderson
    **Harlene Anderson**
    CT utilizedapplied family systems and family therapy in opposition totherapy, instead of the popular
    and Goolishian, relaterelated that this
    social theory began,began with the
    1986). Collaborative therapy stemmed from
    Harold Goolishian and Harlene Anderson represent the primary voices of CT from the initial implementation until its present form today. In 1988, Anderson and Goolishian developed a major premise of CT from their understanding of the nature of language as a meaning-generator a concept known as “not-knowing” (Anderson, 2005). Not-knowing was developed as a way for Anderson and Goolishian to work more effectively with clients and their subjective realities, where the goal of therapy was seen to open space for new meaning through dialogic conversation (Anderson, 2005). Partial to facilitating conversation is assuming the belief that the therapist does not have some objective knowledge of the client and could never understand the client fully without the expert understanding of the client as the expert of his subjective reality (Anderson, 2005). Anderson writes that the not-knowing position includes authentic, active, and respectful listening, where the therapist posture is tentative and open to the subjective reality of the client (Anderson, 2005).
    Another important contributor includes Tom Andersen, who developed the concept of the reflecting team, for theoretical use in CT and as adapted from the Milan approach where a therapeutic team would meet with the family (Andersen, 1987, 1992). Members of the therapeutic team listen to the interviewer and the family, from behind a one-way mirror, as the therapeutic conversation unfolds (Andersen, 1987). Andersen’s (1992) concept of the Milan approach included shifting from the either/or position to the both/and stance, offering a more tentative approach to problem-solving that includes generating new ideas as might be useful for the therapeutic conversation. After an agreed upon time has lapsed, such as 40 minutes, the team members reflect the various and multifaceted ideas that were generated during the listening phase. These ideas are discussed as a way for generating new meaning towards problem understanding and its subsequent resolution. The family and the interviewer then listen to the team’s reflections from the session. Reflections are offered as tentative ideas rather than objective truths or advice giving and offer a more open and ‘public’ therapeutic language than ‘private.’ Opening therapeutic talk from private to public offers a way to maximize dialogic conversations that are relayed in the client’s language rather than the ‘academic’ language of theory or negative connotations that may be inherent to more private therapeutic dialogue. Although, the main goal of the reflecting team is to generate new meaning and ideas that the client may or may not relate to any reflected ideas.
    ExternalLinksVI. External Links
    Homepage for the Houston Galveston Institute
    Therapy Articles:
    Chaveste, R., & Molina, M. L. (2013). Of Crabs and Starfish: Ancestral Knowledge and
    Collaborative Practices. International Journal of Collaborative Practice, 4(1), 20–24
    (view changes)
    5:22 am
  3. page Solution Focused Therapy edited Distinguishing Distinguishing Ideas Contributors Theory Conceptualization ... External Lin…
    DistinguishingDistinguishing Ideas
    Theory Conceptualization
    External Links
    DistinguishingIdeasI. Distinguishing Ideas
    the late 1970’s1970s and early 1980’s,1980s, Solution Focused
    Solution focused therapists engage in solution talk by exploring and building on what is going well in the clients’ lives and this begins as early as the first session. Solution focused therapists believe that it is not necessary to know minute details of the complaints in order to start exploring possible solutions with clients; therefore, sessions are not focused on gathering a detailed past history of complaints and hypothesizing about or explaining why the problem occurs (de Shazer et al., 1986; DeJong & Berg, 2002). The goal of SFT is to utilize the clients’ language to find out what is going well and to continue doing what works. However, this does not imply that the clients cannot talk about their problems since they must engage in solution building. Clients are asked to identify and describe the problem in order to provide information on their perceptions of the problem and how they will know that the problem that brought them to therapy has been resolved (de Shazer et al., 1986; O’ Hanlon, 1993).
    Goals established in SFT are well defined and concrete since well defined goals provide a tangible way to measure the usefulness of therapy for clients and also enable them to anticipate positive change (de Shazer et al., 1986). Asking clients, “How do you think I can be helpful to you today?” allows the therapist to begin focusing on what the clients want from therapy. Goals, frequently set in the first session, are small, behavioral, achievable, and described as presence rather than absence of something (DeJong & Berg, 2002). One of the ways well formed goals are established in SFT is by asking the Miracle Question:
    If it's not working, do something different. If an attempted solution does not work then the client is encouraged to explore and try alternative solutions in order to resolve the problem.
    Small steps can lead to big changes. Clients are encouraged to set small, realistic, behaviorally measured goals. This supports the assumption that small changes lead to other changes in the system. Small steps keep the process of change manageable for clients and allows for progress towards termination of therapy.
    already occurred.
    The language for solution development is different from that needed to describe a problem. Solution focused talk is positive, hopeful; future focused, and sends the message that change can and will happen. On the other hand, problem focused talk is past oriented and tends to imply problems are permanent.
    No problems happen all the time; there are always exceptions that can be identified. There are times in the client's life when the problem they come to therapy with is absent or less severe. Exploring what it different during those times helps make small changes.
    TheoryConceptualizationIII. Theory Conceptualization
    A. Problem Formation
    in circumstances. The client(s) may have overlooked how to apply existing skills to the circumstance changes in the relationship.
    B. Problem Maintenance
    Problems are also maintained as a result of interaction between people (relationships) and when the clients continue trying the same unsuccessful solutions to their problems.
    de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y., Korman, H., Trepper, T., McCollum, E., & Berg, I. K. (2007). More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York: Haworth.
    Lipchik, E. (2002). Beyond technique in solution-focused therapy: Working with emotions and the therapeutic relationship. New York: Guilford Press.
    solution oriented therapytherapy with depression.
    of change: ConstructiveConstructive collaboration in
    Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: W. W. Norton
    Weakland, J., Fisch, R., Watzlawick, P., & Bodin, A. M. (1974). Brief therapy: Focused problem resolution. Family Process, 13, 141-168.
    (view changes)
    5:16 am

Sunday, May 7

Thursday, May 4

Thursday, March 2