Conference Agenda

In recent years, Dialogical Self Theory (DST) has increasingly informed counselling and psychotherapy, yet evidence that DST-oriented training translates into routine practice remains limited. This study assessed perceived impact, transfer to practice, and implementation conditions following a three-day DST summer school held in Preveza, Greece (17–19 July 2025). The programme combined foundational DST teaching, training in mapping internal dialogicality, and parallel experiential workshops using arts-based counselling or therapeutic methods (enactment of inner dialogues, group dialogical process, photographic “snapshots”, and CompositionWork). Application modules addressed individual, couple, family, and group therapy; identity construction (including LGBTQ+ identities); and career/athletic counselling. Sessions on philosophical and cultural-historical roots of dialogicality (e.g., Plato; Greek antiquity), alongside structured reflection, scaffolded dialogical thinking. All attendees (N = 40) were invited to complete an online follow-up survey six months later; 24 responded. Open-ended items explored sustained learning; changes in case formulation and therapeutic stance; techniques used; professional identity shifts; barriers and facilitators; unexpected outcomes; support needs; and the most important perceived change. Responses were analysed using framework analysis. Participants reported strong sustained conceptual uptake, describing a shift toward multi-voiced understandings of clients and reinterpreting ambivalence and conflict as dialogical processes. Many also noted stance changes, including greater curiosity, higher tolerance of complexity, and a less corrective, more exploratory relational posture. Transfer to practice was evident but uneven: mapping internal voices and structured inner-dialogue work were most frequently used, whereas arts-based methods were adopted more selectively. Barriers included time constraints, limited supervision, and setting-related restrictions; facilitators included fit with existing orientations, experiential learning, and access to materials and peers. Respondents highlighted booster sessions and ongoing case-based supervision as key supports for deeper and sustained implementation. Overall, DST training appears to produce durable shifts in formulation and stance, while sustained technique integration depends on post-training supports and practice context.

This presentation outlines qualitative and quantitative strategies for assessing narrative therapy and dialogical self‑therapy in ways that respect their relational, context‑sensitive nature. Formal quantitative assessment anchors changes in symptom and functioning domains using routinely collected measures such as the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS‑32), the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and standard mood and anxiety scales. Pre–post and longitudinal designs compare trajectories for people engaged in intensive narrative/dialogical work with those receiving treatment‑as‑usual, allowing estimation of statistically and clinically significant changes in psychosis, depression, anxiety, interpersonal functioning, and hospitalization rates. These approaches have demonstrated greater improvement on BASIS‑32 scores for inpatient units implementing daily narrative groups and broad symptom reductions and fewer rehospitalizations in narrative psychotherapy compared with conventional CBT for psychosis. Complementing these metrics, qualitative methodologies—narrative inquiry, phenomenology, and case‑based analysis—document how people re‑author identity, reframe voices or anomalous experiences, and reconstruct relationships and community participation. Data sources include in‑depth interviews, participant and therapist field notes, and longitudinal case narratives that trace changes in meaning, agency, and preferred stories over months to years. Informal, practice‑proximal indicators such as session attendance, voluntary engagement, reduction in crisis contacts, and spontaneous reports of restored roles (parenting, education, employment, cultural responsibilities) are tracked as markers of “recovery of function in the ordinary world.” Mixed‑methods designs integrate these strands within individuals and cohorts, using qualitative data to interpret quantitative shifts and to capture transformations that cannot be reduced to symptom scores. We argue that such multi‑layered assessment preserves the dialogical, culturally grounded character of these therapies while still producing rigorous, communicable evidence of effectiveness for clinicians, systems, and policymakers.

The psychotherapeutic relationship is a central determinant of therapeutic engagement and outcome, shaped both by technique and by how clients and therapists perceive one another and imagine they are perceived in return. Drawing on Dialogical Self Theory and theories of intersubjectivity and perspective-taking (Hermans, 2001; Marková, 2003; Gillespie, 2010), this study conceptualises therapy as an encounter in which multiple voices and social perspectives are brought into relation. Using semi-structured interviews with LGBTQ+ clients (N = 11) and therapists (N = 15), the study employs dialogical analysis to examine how participants view one and another (perspectives) and think they are viewed by the other (meta-perspectives); focusing on how sexual orientation identity is viewed and managed in the therapeutic context. Findings illustrate the therapeutic relationship as shaped by a polyphony of voices through which clients and therapists position one another and negotiate meaning around sexual orientation identity. First, clients’ perspectives on therapists depict therapists through a range of relational positions, including as supportive and affirming, directive or authoritative, uncertain yet willing to learn, or as providing guidance and explanation. Second, therapists’ perspectives on clients foreground client voices marked by stigma, anxiety, and uncertainty, presenting clients as engaged in processes of searching, questioning, and negotiating sexual orientation identity. Third, clients’ meta-perspectives articulate perceptions of being seen as recognised or misunderstood, accepted or judged, and positioned as competent, vulnerable, or legitimate in relation to their sexual orientation identity. Finally, therapists’ meta-perspectives reflect perceptions of being seen as knowledgeable or insufficiently equipped, trustworthy or potentially misrecognising.Together, these perspectives and meta-perspectives reveal relational attunement but also tensions and asymmetries that shape safety, disclosure, and engagement in therapy. By tracing these dialogical dynamics, the study extends dialogical theory into LGBTQ+ therapeutic contexts, highlighting how communication and understanding are actively negotiated in practice.

Affiliation / Role: Dialogical/Systemic Psychotherapist

Abstract: This paper explores the transition from traditional systemic thinking to a dialogical/systemic approach, positioning the therapeutic relationship as a field of polyphonic dialogue. Central to this transition is the concept of dialogical reflexivity, defined not as solitary introspection but as a living practice connecting the therapist's inner dialogues with the external dialogues of the session.

Drawing on the intersection of systemic practice and Dialogical Self Theory (incorporating perspectives from Mikhail Bakhtin, Hubert Hermans, Harlene Anderson, Paolo Bertrando, and Peter Rober), we examine how the therapist’s self acts as a landscape of internal polyphony where personal, professional, and cultural voices interact. A key focus is placed on social power and dominance within the therapeutic exchange. We argue that dialogical reflexivity is inextricably linked to relational responsibility, serving as a crucial ethical safeguard against reproducing oppressive power dynamics. By critically reflecting on "who is speaking" and "which voices are marginalized," the therapist can navigate the inevitable asymmetries of the therapeutic relationship.

Furthermore, the paper addresses the conference theme of "contradictions" by analyzing how therapists manage conflicting internal voices—such as the tension between the "expert" position and the stance of "not-knowing." Instead of seeking to resolve these contradictions through a monological consensus, we propose a relational reflexivity that embraces and simultaneously transcends them. This approach allows for a "generative dialogue" where new meanings emerge not from the imposition of truth, but from the interplay of differences.

Finally, we discuss practical applications of this framework, demonstrating how dialogical reflexivity transforms the therapist from a distant observer into an embodied participant, co-creating a space where the "being" of both therapist and client finds meaning through their shared "between", as this is experienced in the relational field.