Exploring Therapist's Worldview in a Family Therapy Theory Course: A Four‐Corners Learning Activity

In recent years, the family therapy field has witnessed a renewed interest in systems theory, coupled with a concern with epistemology. This paper examines the theoretical dilemmas which arise from the polarization of family epistemologies into the pragmatic and the aesthetic. It then examines the problem of ascertaining the truth of any theory, from three different perspectives: truth as fact; truth as coherence; truth as usefulness. It concludes with the presentation of four advantages of applying systems theory to the theory and practice of family therapy.

This teaching case illustrates the innovative application of an instructional technology modality, the WebQuest, in family therapy training. It describes what a WebQuest involves, and how it can be used as a tool for developing critical thinking and application of contemporary marriage and family therapy (MFT) theory to social and global issues. The authors discuss the results of the survey and focus groups conducted to assess the value of this assignment from the students’ perspectives. Results indicate that its application in a family therapy theories course fostered students’ awareness of global issues impacting family life, integration of family therapy theories to serve children and families, creativity in developing their own intervention models, and ability to discuss and integrate knowledge from different knowledge bases and perspectives.

In this final chapter we use the inspiration from the 12 chapters to suggest five areas in which we see family therapy and systemic practice developing. We juxtapose a selection of material from the reports of original developments in our chapters under these headings to draw out the connections between them. The headings are: The political context of our work; Developments in family therapy theories; Novel practices in therapy and training; Developments within systemic theory and practice; and Wider resources and contexts of application. While the material drawn from this book illustrates the current liveliness of systemic couple and family therapy thinking and practice, the sections progressively point to wider resources that could be a foundation for future originality.

This essay introduces the terms "nomothetic" and "idiographic" to characterize the current debate about whether the field of family therapy should accumulate and apply knowledge about patterns of adjustment that hold across different families, or whether the field should consider each family as utterly unique, and should tailor interventions solely on the basis of these unique qualities. Embedded in this debate are the arguments for and against quantitative research, disagreements about the value of clinical prediction and interobserver reliability, as well as the issue of whether therapists can rightfully claim to possess "expert knowledge." The essay begins with the personal-professional anecdote that stimulated me to explore this debate in greater depth. It continues with a brief discussion of the historical context of this debate, particularly noting the parallels between the methodological issues in personality research and those facing family therapy. The nomothetic-idiographic debate in family therapy theory, research, and practice is then described. The essay ends with the suggestion that family therapy view nomothetic and idiographic thinking as complementary, and that the field strive to develop an integrated, "idiothetic" approach to family therapy research and practice.

Among various models relevant to family theory and practice, two are relevant to both endeavors. The Attachment Model has been extremely fruitful in attracting world-wide attention and research. The Drama Triangle, on the other hand, composed by reactive and manipulative Victim, Persecutor, and Rescuer roles—originating in 1968 by S. B. Karpman—has not received the attention and interest it deserves from the family therapy profession. This neglect has occurred in spite of its pervasive presence in fiction (movies and novels), religion and politics, and in the justice and legal systems. In real life, this triangle is evident where emotional, sexual, and physical abuse are present. Both models, however, have received prominence in relational competence theory (L'Abate & Cusinato, 2007). Its clinical applications to family therapy practice should yield ample dividends by conceptualizing dysfunctional processes in ways that could not be perhaps achieved through other known relational models, including attachment. Implications of this triangle for family practice are illustrated by the case of a family where this triangle was present.

The Evolution of Family Process: Contexts and Transformations1,2

Journal of Family TherapyVolume 9, Issue 3 p. 231-240 Free Access Over the top in the theory and practice of family therapy* Bebe Speed, Bebe Speed Family Therapist, Family Institute, Cardiff.Search for more papers by this author Bebe Speed, Bebe Speed Family Therapist, Family Institute, Cardiff.Search for more papers by this author First published: 1987 https://doi.org/10.1046/j..1987.00278.xCitations: 2 * Based on a plenary paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Family Therapy, York, September 1986. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume9, Issue31987Pages 231-240 RelatedInformation

Learning the practice of family therapy in New Zealand is challenging. This is due to tensions within family therapy networks and the paucity of higher-level training opportunities. This article is an experiential account of some of the challenges faced whilst I have tried to learn family therapy in New Zealand. In an attempt to find a way forward, it uses an imagined transcript of a family therapy session. In conclusion, there is an acknowledgement that family therapy theory and practice operates in the context of the prominent epistemology of the day. A recommendation is made for universities to develop higher-level training programs in systemic theory and family therapy. A challenge is made to New Zealand family therapists, to enter into a transparent discussion with respect to difference, from a position of good intent.

Ninety-five studies from Family Process and Journal of Marital and Family Therapy were evaluated with regard to their use of theory. While a majority of the articles were judged to use theory in either an explicit or an implicit manner, 42% did not appear to draw on theory in either the introductory or discussion sections. Studies that used qualitative methods appeared to use theory more frequently and explicitly than those using quantitative methods alone. Systems theory was found to be the most common conceptual framework, followed by feminism. We conclude that the link between theory and research in family therapy needs strengthening and suggest that the role of theory in family therapy be reexamined.

Family therapy has become over the past decade a widely used form of treatment, whose results, as measured by outcome studies, are impressive. Most of the pioneers in family therapy were individuals with a psychoanalytic background (Ackerman, Bowen, Jackson, Lidz, and Wynne); however, the field currently suffers from a lack of any integrating theory. Some family therapists have suggested that this lack of an integrated theory is not a weakness but indeed a strength. They claim the field is still too young, that perhaps it is best to allow family therapy to blossom and grow unencumbered by the restrictions of theory. However, the question is, when will the field be old enough, or will it perpetually be too young? Family therapy began to flourish in the 1960s, a time in the United States characterized, in certain quarters, by strong antiestablishment sentiment. In many respects, this was similar to the Existentialist movement in Europe after World War II, where distrust of authority and distrust of theory went hand in hand. One can similarly suggest that this distrust of a theoretical foundation is experienced by some family therapists as a safeguard against premature closure and control by some vague authority. However, without some unified theory, particularly a theory that is connected with general psychiatric theory and practice, family therapy remains in an alienated position, a step.. child. It is the author's opinion that family therapy has grown up, and it is time that it takes its place in the family of psychotherapies, along with individual and group therapy. Historically, the field of family therapy evolved in various locations under the leadership of a number of charismatic individuals who established their own therapeutic approaches. A wide spectrum of theory and practice in family therapy has resulted. These range from generally psychodynamic methods, which explore familial patterns transmitted through two or three generations (psychoanalytic, family systems, and contextual family therapy),

Despite the pervasive significance of race in society, attention devoted to racial issues in family therapy has been minimal. This paper explores the ways in which family therapy has relegated racial issues to a position of insignificance through a process of marginalization. Recommendations for recognizing the saliency of race within family therapy theory, practice, and training are described.

There has been among family therapists a widespread belief that anthropology is at least useful if not kindred to their field. The belief springs from the assumption that families in different cultural milieus have different ways of expressing their experience of intimacy in everyday life. If this is true, family organization transcends culture, and the latter is a mere language or mode of expression of the more basic pillar of family organization. However, the assumption is also strong that different cultural contexts produce different types of families, and the natural consequence of this hypothesis is that family therapy as developed in the United States would be restricted to dealing with American families, while the problems of family life elsewhere should be meted by the local cultural ways. These two hypotheses, namely that of family universality and that of cultural relativism, are far ends of a continuum. The more interesting and real cases lie somewhere in the middle. In the following argument I will discuss this subject by presenting a brief overview of family therapy's theories and practices for those readers who know nothing about it, by reviewing a recent book that makes the claim that therapists will benefit from some kind of anthropological knowledge, and finally by turning the question on its head and addressing the interest family therapy may have for anthropologists.

The Journal of Marital and Family Therapy ( JMFT ) is the flagship journal of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) and the largest circulation family therapy journal in the world. As a peer‐reviewed journal, JMFT publishes articles on research, theory, clinical practice, and training in marital and family therapy. Recent initiatives include Virtual Issues, the JMFT Doctoral Student Apprenticeship Review Program, and the JMFT Best Article of the Year Award. The journal prides itself on providing a supportive, fair, and respectful review process and dedicated, high quality reviews from its reviewers. It continues to both reflect and shape the field through its commitment to publish the best in family therapy research, theory, practice, and training.

This article is concerned with the relationships which hold between the clinical practice and the theory of family therapy; and between these and academic research. These relationships are seen as tenuous and thin because, in the first place, there is a lack of rigorous theoretical underpinning; and second, the research methods employed do not fit in with current family therapy practice, and with the theory that underlies this practice. The role of the concept of narrative process modes is proposed as a bridging and mediating one. The external, internal and reflective narrative process modes are seen as relevant from the point of view of family therapy process research, and the clinical practice of marital and family therapy.

This paper explores some of the ways in which family therapy theory and practice limits an appreciation of the contexts of families and family therapists. It focuses particularly upon how the rules which underline patterns of relationships in social systems are made and maintained more by one part of a system than by another, and considers this (a) within families, (b) within various aspects of the social environment of families, and (c) within the organizational contexts of family therapists. It then proposes that the systemic thinking which family therapists apply to families is potentially applicable to wider contexts including international relationships.