Better tomorrows for SF?

Mark McKergow

Since you first came to SOLWorld… what’s better?• What are you

seeing that is showing a (potentially) better tomorrow for SF?

Some possible tomorrows for SF

• An undercover secret for experienced consultants?

• ‘SF inside’ organisations? (More conscious and public)

• A greater development of academic links?• A more coherent SF approach?• Splintering into 100 different competing

‘schools’• Disappears completely as everyone moves on

Elements of a better tomorrow

My own view• Wider recognition

– Within potential practitioner communities– Within academic and policy areas

• Keeping the distinctiveness– Of BFTC developments – And building on them

• Connecting with other fields– As well as talking to ourselves

• The name?....

What research?• US university professor:•     “Presently, there is very little research evidence that solution focused

therapy is effective or that it is beneficial in helping people solve their personal problems. Unfortunately, too many of the psychotherapies that are provided have yet to be examined or shown to work. This does not mean that they do not work -- instead, it means that we really don't know that they are beneficial….  Unfortunately, solution focused therapy has yet to the kind of research support that would put it into the category of evidence based treatment. For that reason, I cannot extend an invitation to Elliott Connie to speak at the college (sponsored by the graduate program)."

• Little evidence?• Or “I think I can safely ignore the evidence”?• Or “If I took the evidence seriously, I would have to rethink my

whole field and I don’t want to do that”? • We are not alone in this….

Narrative practice

• Michael White and David Epston, late 80’s

• Focusing on ‘thickening’ useful narratives (of which there are usually traces already) and leaving problem narratives to wither and die

• Witnessing practices – observers adding to conversations

Comparison of SF and narravive

Similarities Differences• ‘Client is expert’ in their

own lives and wishes• Therapist in a not-knowing

position• Accepting/privileging client

language and guiding conversation

• Post-structural background (if one is needed)

• The action is in the interaction

• SF pragmatism / narrative more elaborate

• Narrative explicitly social constructionist /SF implicitly

• Different traditions – different norms

• (But recent dialogue on rapprochement)

• SF can be viewed as ‘narrative emergence’ (Miller & McKergow 2013)

The pra

ctice

s require

s gentle

not-

knowing a

nd appre

ciatio

n…

While

aca

demia

dem

ands

assert

ive co

nfidence…

What counts as research?• Upside – plenty of small scale work going on• Downsides

– SF practice has evolved since 1988 – many versions around (and which are we researching?)

– The vast majority of SF and narrative developments happen outside the academic discourse - mostly happening in practitioner circles

– Drives to ‘evidence based practice’ are leading to manualisation and debasement of a skilful practice (like playing the piano)

– Questions about ‘what counts as evidence’ – eg needing a diagnostic category (Catch 22)

– What work there is in academic circles is in ‘low-status’ departments (eg nursing, OT)– Many University SF teachers not well plugged in to SF networks – Lack of focus for publications (scattergun literature)– No university-based centre or focus– No good account of mechanism or broader paradigm (but see enactivism and

narrative emergence) – How many SF workers actually read the research anyway?

Risks of ‘going academic’: Ossification vs identity

• Ossification – field becomes set in stone in order to research itself– A known issue we are all keen to avoid– Beginners mind, every case is different

• Identity – what are we researching? – Within these walls probably OK, SFCT Clues offers a

way forward (but see UKASFP accreditation efforts)– Outside – hopeless, everyone is ‘solution-focused’– Beginners mind becomes a ball-and-chain –

reluctance to challenge, anything goes position

Scaling

• On a scale from 1-10, what is your confidence level of (your version of) a better tomorrow for SF?

• Pairs or threes – how come it’s that high? What makes you confident? What else?

• What would be (tiny) signs that would tell you that your confidence was increasing?

Coming soon!• A joint programme between the department of Philosophy and

the school of Nursing and Social Work at the University of Hertfordshire

• We are setting out to:– Collect and share research on solution-focused and other

enactive, post-cognitive and post-structural practices including narrative and other interactional approaches.

– Actively build connections with the growing enactive view, to bring learning and experience to both sides.

– Carry out innovative research in philosophy of mind to extend practical implications of the enactive view.

– Teach and share these findings with working practitioners in the fields of health, social work, management and education.

Published on Monday 6 October

Lots of SF inside…

Thank you!