Welcome to the 2011 Editions

Mark McKergow , Kirsten Dierolf , Anton Stellamans & Carey Glass

Volume 3.1 - May 2011

How can we learn from each other to make SF trainings more effective? That’s the key question to be addressed at the forthcoming SFCT Trainers Conference on 28–29 October 2011. This will be the first meeting anywhere to focus expli- citly on SF training for around five years, and it’s about time this issue was readdressed. Having focused on the review process and supporting consultants, SFCT is now moving to engage the ‘T’ in its name by working with trainers.

One key question to be addressed is the balance between

showing and telling. Steve de Shazer was famously uncom- promising in his stance of wanting to show SF and the grammar of the practice, rather than explaining it. This may have been rigorously correct – but is it the best way to engage newcomers? Even today there are a variety of views around this, with some trainers seeking near-total experien- tiality and others favouring a greater balance between cognitive frameworks and practical exercises.

Another question is about timing. Some leading groups have for many years run simple two-day workshops, and even insisted that the approach is so simple that no further new content is necessary after this. Others have found a benefit in multi-module approaches. How to sequence material, how to link modules together, how to engage learners between modules – these are all areas where bringing together interna- tional experience can lead to a more lasting impact on learners and return in investment for client organisations.

Something that many will wish to discuss is how to support learners in applying their SF skills in the workplace. What is the role of ongoing supervision? How can we use different learning methods including ‘brain-friendly’ learning? How can we assess the effectiveness of SF training – in an SF way? And how can we get more people interested in learning SF to benefit themselves and their organisations. All of these are issues with direct relevance to many SFCT members and would-be members. Please help us to spread the word about this exciting and timely event.

This issue features a fascinating interview with Luc Isabaert, the founder of IASTI (the International Alliance of Solution-Focused Training Institutes). As well as his pioneer- ing work on alcohol dependency, Luc discussed his reasons for wishing to make progress on certification of SF therapy trainings. We at SFCT hope to forge a partnership with IASTI to utilise our work on accreditation via the review process. It’s time for those who want to raise the profile of SF and have expressed support in the past for such initiatives to get actively involved in whatever way they can.

SF’s relationship with other approaches. Bannink and Jackson compare Positive Psychology and SF, Macdonald reacts to common questions that are often asked (critically or curiously) about SF and Dierolf points out the similarities between Discursive Psychology and SF. Comparisons with other approaches are very helpful in understanding our own approach better – and it is always a good idea to broaden your horizon. We hope our readers will enjoy these papers as much as we – and the peer reviewers – did.

Our classic paper is Nick Triantafillou’s ‘A Solution- Focused Approach to Mental Health SF Supervision’ and is introduced by Alasdair Macdonald. This paper is well worth revisiting as a very early example of managers/supervisors using the model to work with practitioners who were also using the model. It features actual outcome data as well as good clear thinking.

In our case section, you will find a very interesting case from Japan. Yoshida-san has developed an SF process for teams in retail banking. What is most fascinating about this case is that although the SF process was the same for all branches, the conclusions the individual branches came up with were very different from one another – showing the SF principle of ‘every case is different’.

This time we have book reviews on topics including positive deviance, beyond the crisis, combat stress and 1001 SF questions. If you have read an interesting book about or around SF – why don’t you consider writing a review? There is always space for them, and it’s a great way to start writing. Finally, our research reviewer this time is Steve Smith from Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.

Volume 3.2 - May 2011

Held in September, the topic of the European Brief Therapy Association (EBTA) conference was “Frames”. It explored the personal, social and political frames that surround SF. One question that came up at the conference was the legit imacy of a theoretical frame for SF; a question that has occupied us for a while now. Steve de Shazer himself wrote on the SFT mailing list in October 1998 that “theories are, at best, useless”.

But what do we mean by theory? Gale Miller has written that “people use the word theory in many different ways and unless a person is willing to say that he or she knows what it really means or what it should mean, then we need to be open to a variety of different formulations” (personal communication). Some require prediction, some don’t. Some are explanatory, some are looser. So in discussing this ongoing topic a foray into our more useful and less useful misunderstandings of each other’s definition of theory might be helpful. This plethora of meanings reflects Wittgenstein’s view that the meaning of a word is in its use, a view that Steve took seriously. So how did Steve de Shazer use the word “theory”?

SF has not been developed out of a theory but pragmat- ically developed out of the observation of what works in therapy. At the conference, Michael Durrant explained that it is not accurate to say that Steve was not interested in theory, but that it was critical for him that SF move from practice to theory rather than from theory to practice. If you are about making real change with people, this makes perfect sense. So through practice Steve, Insoo, Eve Lipchik, Elam Nunnally and others discovered an overarching “theory” or principle that you can build solutions without assuming that you must explore problems and worked on solution-building techniques to achieve this.

Understanding this has led to a revolutionary way of thinking that soundly rejects the idea of theories that are explanatory and predictive of human behaviour. They sit outside the realm of SF. Explanations are not connected to solutions. For example, explanatory theories about problems or theories that allow the therapist/consultant to uncover the true meaning of what the client is saying are out.

But this does not mean that theoretical frames have not influenced the practice of SF. One could wonder if we would be able to observe without a theoretical frame. References to the theories of the Mental Research Institute, social construc tivism, Milton H. Erickson, the philosophy of Wittgenstein, Derrida and Buddhism abound in Steve’s and Insoo’s work. These theories helped them to develop and describe what they were doing at BFTC. And effective practice made it clear that facts should change theories, not the other way around.

After Steve’s and Insoo’s deaths, many of us are still wondering “what is going on when we do SF?” The issue is not whether we theorise about SF, but how. We need to be vigilant about our theorising, ensuring the areas we explore are based on the premises of SF. Gale Miller and Mark McKergow will soon publish a book chapter aiming to look at what SF is and describing what happens in the interac- tional space between people, which they term narrative emergence. This is based on SF’s interactional view and rejection of mentalistic theories and as such fits within the scope of how we might legitimately theorise about SF. Of course if as a result we say: “if we do this then that should happen”, we will have fallen into the trap of causality and missed the SF boat entirely.

While we are thinking about these issues maybe we should take into account the philosophical tradition of Pragmatism which focuses on linking practice and theory. In Pragmatism theory and practice are not separate spheres. John Dewey argues that there is no theory versus practice but intelligent practice and uninformed practice. Pragmatism describes the process in which theory is taken from practice and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice. In this issue of InterAction you will find peer reviewed articles by Coert Visser on the association between SF coaching and client perceived coaching outcomes and David Hawkes on the relevance of the work of Martin Heidegger and phenomenology to SF theory. We also feature our first discussion paper, where Christine Kuch and Susanne Burgstaller offer their views on ways of working with organ isations as systems. We actively seek comments about this paper; a selection will be published in the next issue.

This edition also features an intimate interview with film director Nora Bateson. She talks about the legacy of her father’s work and how she enjoyed this year’s International SOLWorld conference in Hungary.

Our classic paper this time is Steve de Shazer’s less known Resistance Revisited, published in 1989, 10 years after his famous Death of Resistance. It offers an account of the way they dealt with the concept of resistance at BFTC. The author also provides a recipe of how theories should be constructed and what their theory was all about: “a theory of how change develops within the therapeutic context.” We have two case studies this time. The first, by Annette Gray, presents a detailed account of a team-coaching workshop. The second, written by Loraine Kennedy and

Colin Coombs, offers an insight into their “Art of Influenc ing” workshops. If there is a piece of work that you are particularly proud of, why don’t you consider writing a case study and contact the editorial team? It is a great way to spark other people’s creativity.

Our research review has been compiled by Dave Hawkes, who has chosen to compare two of the pieces on training programmes in SF. From this research he has drawn the conclusion that SF training must include its philosophical and theoretical context as well as techniques and on-going super vision if trainees are to be more confident in using it in sometimes hostile environments.

In order to become full members of SFCT, candidates present a piece of SF work for review. New in this edition of InterAction is that we present a ‘Review review’ where you can find brief descriptions of these submitted pieces of work. We have cases from Japan, Finland and Canada. The longer reports are available at: http://www.asfct.org/memberslist.php