This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Conclusion In spite of the group tendency to adopt a more comfortable


and less risky position in the group, which might have been reflected in the “middle position”, the tutorial activity seemed to have allowed students to take some risks, as some people expressed quite strong connections either of fit or misfit with the model, which was immediately shared amongst students in a visually powerful way. Through this immediacy, I have learnt a lot about my students’ views and practice in a very short space of time. I tend to use some of the solution-focused techniques as


and when it seems to “fit” with clients, rather than using the approach in its entirety. Therefore, my own relationship with the model can be described as “flexible”. I wonder whether this was reflected in the group process in that most students were also positioned in the middle and stated they were using solution-focused ideas as “tools”. I also encourage students to be “flexible” in their positioning. In this respect, there might have been a parallel process and “fit” between myself and the student group, which may account for its effectiveness. It can also be connected to Burnham’s idea (2005) about relational reflexivity, in that we were able to coordinate our resources, attending to process and what was happening in the room. As in therapy, the outcome of an intervention can reflect


the fit between the players at that particular time in a specific context; e.g. tutor and their students, supervisor and supervisee, therapist and clients, as well as a variety of other inner voices emerging in the process of working together. Nevertheless, I believe this format can be used or adapted


in training contexts to explore students’ relationship to other systemic models, to promote risk-taking, to make links between theory and practice and to reflect on their personal and professional connections to theoretical ideas, all of which can enhance self-reflexivity. I would like to thank my course chair, Sumita Dutta, for her


encouragement and suggestions in writing this article. I also thank my students who have taken the trouble to give me such generous and helpful feedback.


References Berg, I.K. (1994) “I’d hear laughter” DVD. New York: W.W. Norton. Byng-Hall, J. (1995) Rewriting Family Scripts. New York: The Guildford Press. Burnham, J. (2005) Relational refl exivity: A tool for socially constructing therapeutic relationships. In C. Flaskas, B. Mason & A. Perlesz (eds) The Space in Between. Experience, Context, and Process in the Therapeutic Relationship. London: Karnac. Hermans, H.J.M. (2004) The dialogical self: Between exchange and power. In H.J.M. Hermans & G. Dimaggio (eds) The Dialogical Self in Psychotherapy. New York: Brunner, Routledge. Kantor, D. & Dahl, B.S. (1973) Learning Space and Actions in Family Therapy: A Primer. New York: Grune and Stratton. Mason, B. (2011) Supervision and the training context: Some thoughts and ideas about the ownership of knowledge in practice. Context, 116: 2-3. Papp, P. (1973) Family sculpting in preventative work with “well” families. Family Process, 12: 197-212.


Rober, P. (2008) The therapist’s inner conversation: A dialogical model based on a grounded theory analysis of therapist refl ections, Journal of Family Therapy, 34: 406-421. Scaife, J. (1993) Setting the scene for supervision: The application of a systems framework to an initial consultation interview. Human Systems, 4: 161-172.


Chiara is a systemic and family psychotherapist working in a family resource centre, children’s services where she leads the family therapy service. She is also a tutor and lecturer at the Institute of Family Therapy since 2009 for the certificate in systemic practice. She undertakes therapeutic assessments and offers family therapy privately for court purposes. Email: c.santin@btinternet.com


I am left simmering in a refl exive broth of a new work soup


What is this Tomm foolery? using questions to explore and not statements to close.......... our conversations. Does any Tomm, Greg and Chloe shake up my bag of experience, adding spice to a work-a-day-life? yes, and more than that, the tang of de-constructionism gives a kick to the senses leaving me to refl ect off my well trodden path.


T is was writ en in my second year of systemic theory and


practice at Derby University. It was a metaphor that turned into verse. I loved the words but also the new position I found my self in through the reading. Bridget Marston


8


Context February 2012


A training tutorial on solution-focused therapy: A forum of voices sharing their refl ections


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64