Conference Agenda

This symposium presents four research case studies into the process of individual, group and couple therapy of an enriched systemic therapy model. Several qualitative methods are adopted and/or adjusted to collect data (e.g. interpersonal process recall, transcript analysis) and to analyze data (e.g. narrative microanalysis and thematic analysis). The studies’ results emphasize the importance of therapy research as co-construction, with emphasis given to the voice of the clients as equal partners in the research endeavor and to the active contribution of therapists in the therapy conversation. Notions of reflexivity and self-compassion stand out as important markers in client progress, whereas theme co-construction and defining the dialogical space stand out as essential therapy processes..

In group therapy, reflexivity concerning the process and self-progress, may be generated by listening to experiences and stories of group members leading to change. In the present study, 8 group members in long-term enriched systemic therapy and their therapist viewed previous week video-recorded session and were then interviewed individually. The method borrowed procedures from Interpersonal Process Recall (Larsen et al., 2008; Rennie & Toukmanian, 1992). Interviewees were allowed to think back and comment on the session at the end of video viewing rather than at various points during the viewing. The aspects of reflexivity were explored by thematic analysis. Themes that emerged: a) valuing the therapeutic relationship, b) attunement to the therapist, c) co-construction of a main theme, d) growing compassion and acceptance, e) capacity to include conflicting emotions. The results are discussed in connection to previous findings using different methodology. Limitations and clinical implications are discussed.

The majority of studies using the Interprersonal Process Recall Method (IPA (Rennie and Toukmanian, 1992) ask clients to comment on the video session immediately after the end of it. In the present study we asked clients in long term therapy (enriched systemic model) to comment on the video of their early sessions. The findings we present here focus on comments regarding the self rather than other therapeutic factors (e.g. therapeutic relationship). The purpose was to give voice to clients rather than create or test theory. A thematic analysis indicated the following categories, all of which point to progression: ongoing motivation, self-growth, self-mastery, self-compassion, self-reflexivity. A case study example is used to illustrate findings. We discuss the parameter of self-compassion as an interesting finding, which also reflects a growing understanding of its impact. We also notice the links clients make between growing self-compassion and parenting their inner child as a traumatized inner part.

This qualitative study investigates the processes of theme co-construction and revision of restricting themes in a single enriched systemic group therapy session. Ideas were drawn from studies on the constructive nature of conversation in individual therapy (De Jong, Bavelas and Korman, 2013). In a first round of research, narrative analysis identified one restricting theme running through group dialogues. Following this, four therapist skills, formulations, lexical choice, questions, and grounding were marked as important in the process of co-constructing and revising a theme within a group. One fifth skill, exercised by clients, emerged, self-disclosure as feedback to other members. In a second round of research, the origins of the theme were traced to the previous session. Therapists are invited to recognize their own part in co-constructing and revising themes in group sessions, through introducing but also picking up useful utterances that develop into more liberating themes.

In this single case study of a couple therapy session, we looked into ways in which the therapist and the couple negotiated and eventually defined the limits of what is said and what is not said. In existing studies, the therapist’s conversational input in this negotiation has not been emphasized. This session was transcribed and analyzed, using a micro-analytic method for monitoring the development of dialogical space (Rober, 2016). The couple’s willingness to engage in specific topics ranged from being eager to discuss certain matters, to being completely unwilling to touch upon specific issues, even though the therapist made several efforts to introduce them. This unwillingness was evident in the couple’s use of several linguistic strategies. The therapist’s active role and conversation position were eventually restricted by the limits set by the couple. Even though the therapist opened alternative paths, the couple decided the pace and direction of the therapeutic dialogue. We suggest that the issues placed by couples outside the limits of the said should be considered extremely sensitive and should be kept in the mind of the therapist for future conversations.