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?)