Frameworks for Practice in the Systemic Field: Part 1 — Continuities and Transitions in Family Therapy Knowledge

Abstract

This is the first of two articles to map the landscape of practice theory in systemic family therapy. In this first article, the representation of knowledge for practice is explored, and an argument is made that while frameworks remain important, the relationship to them is now more conditional and pragmatic. A particular chronology is offered of the development of family therapy practice theory frameworks, beginning with the frameworks that emerged in the 1960s to the 1970s. An analysis is given of the important transitions in the 1980s and three sets of influences in this decade -ecosystemic epistemology, the feminist challenge and postmodernism -are identified. This reading emphasises hidden continuities in the transition, despite the seemingly discontinuous shifts in practice theory from the beginning of the 1980s to the beginning of the 1990s. Context and relationship are identified as the enduring parameters of systemic family therapy knowledge, though understandings of context and relationship have been recast in the contemporary (post-1990s) practice theory. The second article will explore the four contemporary influential approaches in Australian family therapy -the Milansystemic, narrative and solution-focused frameworks, and the dialogical perspective -and point to intersections in practice ideas and integrative movements.A foundational territory in teaching family therapy lies in how you choose to represent the parameters of the systemic field, how you choose to represent continuities and commonalities in the development of practice theory frameworks across time,

Integrating Reflective Practice in Family Therapy Supervision

“…Reflective practice in part parallels other established therapeutic processes. These include the countertransference relationship and examination of the therapist's inner dialogue (Flaskas, 2004(Flaskas, , 2010Rober, 2011), 'mindfulness' when attending to reflection on the interaction (Andersson, King & Lalande, 2010;Vandenberghe & da Silveira, 2013), the work of Balint to promote introspection, empathy and self-awareness for both therapist and client (Lichtenstein & Lustig, 2006) and 'mentalization' in making sense of self, the other and relationships (Asen & Fonagy, 2012).…”

Frameworks for Practice in the Systemic Field: Part 2 — Contemporary Frameworks in Family Therapy

“…The early forms of family therapy practice theory focused on behaviour, using the ideas from systems theory that had been generated in the 1940s and 1950s, and in particular the ideas of systems and subsystems boundaries, positive and negative feedback, homeostasis, plus Gregory Bateson's (later) theory of circular causality (Flaskas, 2007(Flaskas, , 2010. Current frameworks emphasise meaning and language.…”

“…articles together form one project, although they can also stand alone. The first article (Flaskas, 2010) explored continuities and transitions in family therapy practice theory, giving a particular chronology through to 1990. Contemporary practice theory becomes the subject of this second article, which brings into view four main approaches -the Milan-systemic, narrative and solution-focused frameworks, and the still-emerging dialogical approach.…”

Social and community program approaches to participants: Exploring best practices

“…Over the years, external expert‐dominated and individual intrapsychic approaches have been subjected to criticism (Lawthom, ; Maton, ; Nelson & Prilleltensky, ; Prilleltensky, ; Sandler, ). The introduction of the systems theory and family therapy brought to the surface the focus on families and larger systems (Magnavita, 2000; Flaskas, ), whereas the ecological approach added the principle of interdependence, showing that individuals and organizations in a society are necessarily connected (Bronfenbrenner, ). To understand poverty, encompassing ecosystemic and ecological lenses that intersect multiple perspectives proved to have more explanatory power than individual and linear perspectives (Speer & Hughley, ).…”