Research

Mark McKergow & Gale Miller Abstract Professor Gale Miller is a member of the Department of Social and Cultural Sciences at Marquette University, Milwaukee. He is interested in research around issues involv- ing language and social problems, and was involved as a researcher with Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and their team at the Brief Family Therapy Centre during the evolution of what we now know as SF therapy. These observations led to his book Becoming Miracle Workers: Language and Meaning in Brief Therapy (1997). He continues to be involved with the SF community around the world.

Coert Visser & Gwenda-Schlundt-Bodien Abstract SF co-developer Steve de Shazer wrote, in his classic publi- cations Keys to Solution in Brief Therapy (1985) and Clues: Investigating Solutions in Brief Therapy (1988), that SF prac- titioners should help their clients create an expectation of beneficial change by getting a description of what they would do differently once the problem was solved. Also, he claimed subtle and implicit interventions by the SF practitioner would work best. At the time, de Shazer did not support these claims with empirical evidence. This article provides evidence for each of the assertions made by de Shazer. Only part of the evidence presented here was already available at the time of de Shazer’s writing. Evidence is discussed from diverse lines of research like Rosenthal’s Pygmalion studies, Dweck’s research on self-theories, Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory, research on Winograd’s prospective memory, Jean- nerod’s research on the perception-action link, Wilson’s research on brief attributional interventions, research on Brehm’s reactance theory and Bargh’s research on priming. The article closes with some reflections on what these research findings imply for SF theory and practice

Paolo-Terni Abstract Darwin’s algorithm has been shown to be Nature’s way of exploring the “solution space” for problems related to survival and reproduction. This paper shows how SF conver- sations (as used in therapy and brief coaching) can be framed as a Darwinian algorithm to explore the “solution space” for the problems clients bring to the session. Evolutionists can stride across human-related subjects at the highest level of intellectual discourse, in the same way that evolutionary biologists are already accustomed to striding across biological subjects (Wilson, 2007, p.6). What I am advocating is a point of view, a way of looking at familiar facts and ideas, and a way of asking new questions about them (Dawkins, 1982, p.1).

Karen-De-Waele, Joe Chan We met Karen De Waele at the SF in a Large-Scale Context Unconference in December 2019 and she inspired us to start this new section of our InterAction journal, sharing Research Initiatives in organisational contexts. She is calling for your support in connecting her to organisations for her project. Contributor Joe Chan from Singapore also has a research project underway and we include his summary below. If you would like to contact them, please use their email addresses.

Sirkkaliisa Heimonen & John Brooker Introduced by John Brooker Lessons for Organisations Practitioners use Solution Focus in different disciplines, including (but not limited to therapy, counselling, individual coaching, team coaching, organisational and supra organisational development. This article serves as a reminder that these disciplines often overlap and that it is important to keep cross-pollinating knowledge between them. Sirkkaliisa Heimonen and her colleagues have been researching the impact on individuals with mild cognitive impairment and early-onset dementia while at work. Their work forms part of an international study into this issue, and they studied 11 people in total in Finland.

Dr. Rachel Gillibrand & Dr. Adam S. Froerer & Mia Lunde Introduced by Paut-Kromkamp As enthusiasts of the solution-focused approach, therapy or otherwise, we know it works. Our clients often tell us it works. But do we understand how it works; really understand? We know quite a bit about what works; we constantly look for that adage, ‘When something works, do more of it.’ And we know quite a bit about with whom it works; that is, with almost anyone and in virtually any situation - though people unfamiliar with Solution Focus (SF) often find that hard to grasp. But hard evidence about the how is tougher to find. Especially about what happens in the brain as people answer questions in a solution-focused session.

Dr. Rachel Gillibrand & Dr. Adam S. Froerer & Mia Lunde Introduced by Paut-Kromkamp As enthusiasts of the solution-focused approach, therapy or otherwise, we know it works. Our clients often tell us it works. But do we understand how it works; really understand? We know quite a bit about what works; we constantly look for that adage, ‘When something works, do more of it.’ And we know quite a bit about with whom it works; that is, with almost anyone and in virtually any situation - though people unfamiliar with Solution Focus (SF) often find that hard to grasp. But hard evidence about the how is tougher to find. Especially about what happens in the brain as people answer questions in a solution-focused session.

Adam is Senior Researcher at the Center for Solution Focus Research and has published several process and outcome studies related to solution focused brief therapy. Adam has clinical, academic, and research background that has culminated in being appointed the Director of Research and Training for the Solution Focused University and a Senior Researcher for the Center of Solution Focused Research.

Rachel is the Director of Center for Solution Focus Research and brings 20 years experience as a researcher, academic and practitioner in psychology. Her work using EEG to explore the role of solution focused therapy in creative thinking has been widely reported and was the inspiration for this research programme.

Janet Bavelas’ research team specializes in the study of face-to-face dialogue in both the experimental lab and applied settings. Our basic research focuses on identifying the unique features of face-to-face dialogue, especially (a) reciprocal influence and collaboration and (b) visible actions that are integrated with speech (e.g., hand and facial gestures). This research has applications in psychotherapy, medical communication, and any other setting where dialogue is important. Our primary research method is microanalysis of dialogue–the reliable, moment-by-moment analysis of video recordings of actual dialogues.