Welcome to the 2010 Editions

Mark McKergow , Kirsten Dierolf , Anton Stellamans & Carey Glass

Volume 2.1 - May 2010

One year on … what’s better?

SFCT has now been functioning for just over a year. In that time we have seen much progress. This is the third issue of InterAction, which is helping us to establish SF as a credible intellectual, as well as practical, tradition as we build links with universities and academics around the world. The growth of our editorial advisory board, now including Mike Brent from Ashridge Business School in the UK, is testament to this.

We are also delighted to be one of the official supporting organisations for the OD World Summit 2010. This event runs in Budapest from 22 – 26 August 2010, and features leading speakers from many OD networks and approaches. We are thrilled that SF can now appear alongside Apprecia- tive Inquiry, Open Space, World Café, the Society for Organizational Learning and the OD Network amongst many others at this prestigious event. We urge as many members as possible to attend and support, and to get involved in papers and presentations.

Another development this year is the start of SFCT national chapters. Chapter Heads have stepped forward from around the world, and national/language group networks are now forming. The Finnish chapter, led by Marike Tammeaid, was the first to meet face-to-face. They were shortly followed by the British chapter, where 20 members met in London for a continuing professional development (CPD) day in March. Chapters are also forming in Germany, Scandinavia, Japan, North America and the Baltic States at the moment – look out for news if you are in those areas. Each chapter will hold its own events including meet- ings, telecalls and other networking forums – see the SFCT website for the latest news.

Our innovative approach to professional recognition through reviews is also gaining momentum, with several applicants achieving Full Member status and others in the process of so doing. We are very pleased with the way in which the review process results in good learning for every- one involved, including the reviewers. It offers a way to recognise good SF practice without being over-specific about what this entails. Our tradition is a practical one where ‘every case is different’, and so what constitutes good SF practice remains an exploration every time.

This issue of InterAction continues to develop our intel- lectual voice with peer-reviewed papers from Coert Visser on self-determination theory and SF and Sabine Indinger on links with Victor Frankl’s logotherapy. Julie Gregory shows how an SF approach can improve entrepreneur education in business schools, and cases from Adie Shariff and Alison Abington (UK) and Alan Kay (Canada) show SF in action in strategic and organisational settings. BRIEF’s Chris Iveson is our interviewee, sharing some perspectives on the need (or lack of it) to talk about actions in SF conversations based on his twenty years of exploring this approach. Rayya Ghul introduces our classic paper, Gale Miller and Steve de Shazer’s Emotions in Solution-Focused Therapy: A Re- examination from 2000. Paolo Terni is this issue’s research reviewer.

Volume 2.2 - May 2010

Evidence or credibility?

There is often talk about the evidence for the success of SF approaches – how much is there, what is it, and when will it be enough? The first two of the questions are relatively straightforward to answer, thanks in large part to the efforts of EBTA Research Coordinator and SFCT member Dr Alasdair Macdonald. His website ( www.solutionsdoc.co.uk) currently lists 95 relevant studies (mainly in therapy), 2 meta-analyses and 15 randomised controlled trials showing benefit from SF approaches with 8 showing increased benefit over existing methods. Of 33 comparison studies, 25 favour SF. Effective- ness data are also available from some 4,000 cases with a success rate exceeding 60%, requiring an average of 3 – 5 sessions of therapy time. This is an impressive list. In the organisational world, there is an extensive collection of cases and journal articles assembled over the years, including house- hold name organisations and a wide variety of contexts.

The third question – when will there be ‘enough’ evidence – is much more difficult. We routinely hear, particularly in medical and therapeutic settings, about sceptical profession- als asking again and again for ‘the evidence’. It seems that, whatever the actual research findings, there is always some reason for someone to doubt them in their own field of expertise. It seems that what is needed is not more evidence, but credibility. When people continue to question the evidence in the face of a huge pile of it, they are not really questioning the evidence, as if one more study would make all the difference. They are questioning the whole basis of the SF approach as credible and effective.

What would give us more credibility? Clear statements about what we do, and why we do it. Clear connections with contemporary science and philosophy. Practitioners engaging with other fields in constructive ways, remaining clear about the uniqueness of SF and not pretending it’s something else for short-term advantage. Professional and authoritative bodies who look credible to passing visitors and other prac- titioners. A clear idea of what good SF practice looks like, and how one might notice it in action.

All of this means getting past the gnomic ‘not knowing’ so familiar in SF circles. A beginner’s mind position is a valu- able and important tool in our practice. When we come to discuss our work with other professionals, on the other hand, it can quickly become a liability. Without a clear account of the philosophy, elements and awarenesses of the work, SF can start to look naïve, vague and simplistic to those famil- iar with more structured and explanation-based approaches.

SFCT is at the forefront of attempts to develop a clear and professional position for SF practitioners. This endeavour is not an easy one, given the slippery and emergent nature of SF work, where every case is different. This issue features a revised version of our Clues, itself a bold attempt to make clear the nature of good SF practice without constraining or codify- ing it. We hope that others in therapy and other fields will be keen to learn from this, join in and forge a common front in support of the continuing development and enhancement of SF.

This issue features many international contexts. Sofie Geisler’s reflections on using SF in Mexico show a whole new light on the issues of getting taken seriously, while Nick Greer offers a UK perspective on the delicate role of manager-as-coach. We have cases from South Africa (Stanus Cloete with team development at a hair salon), and an inter- national charity working on intellectual property rights for indigenous people (John Brooker). Our classic paper is seen by some as the ‘paper that started it all’ – Steve de Shazer and colleagues making their crucial step away from their MRI predecessors in 1987. Harry Korman, who has been involved in SF practice from pretty close to the outset, is our interviewee – his thoughts on his early experiences and the latest micro-analysis research make fascinating reading. We also have a first-rate research digest from David Weber, our first Letter to the Editors, and reviews of the latest SF books.