A Critical Methodological Review of Discourse and Conversation Analysis Studies of Family Therapy

Abstract

Discourse (DA) and conversation (CA) analysis, two qualitative research methods, have been recently suggested as potentially promising for the study of family therapy due to common epistemological adherences and their potential for an in situ study of therapeutic dialog. However, to date, there is no systematic methodological review of the few existing DA and CA studies of family therapy. This study aims at addressing this lack by critically reviewing published DA and CA studies of family therapy on methodological grounds. Twenty-eight articles in total are reviewed in relation to certain methodological axes identified in the relevant literature. These include choice of method, framing of research question(s), data/sampling, type of analysis, epistemological perspective, content/type of knowledge claims, and attendance to criteria for good quality practice. It is argued that the reviewed studies show "glimpses" of the methods' potential for family therapy research despite the identification of certain "shortcomings" regarding their methodological rigor. These include unclearly framed research questions and the predominance of case study designs. They also include inconsistencies between choice of method, stated or unstated epistemological orientations and knowledge claims, and limited attendance to criteria for good quality practice. In conclusion, it is argued that DA and CA can add to the existing quantitative and qualitative methods for family therapy research. They can both offer unique ways for a detailed study of the actual therapeutic dialog, provided that future attempts strive for a methodologically rigorous practice and against their uncritical deployment.

Blame, responsibility and systemic neutrality: a discourse analysis methodology to the study of family therapy problem talk

“…In any case, we suggest that further research is needed. The detailed microanalysis of problem talk that DA facilitates can greatly enhance our understanding of the complexities and the perplexities of therapeutic dialogue (Avdi, ; Avdi and Georgaca, ; Newman et al ., ; Peräkylä et al ., ; Strong et al ., ; Tseliou, ). For example, it can shed light on the nuances of our contributions, both in those cases where we engage in dialogues generative of ‘problem‐free possibilities,’ but also, and most importantly, in cases where, along with family members, we become immobilized by entrapping discursive exchanges, as in in the case of blaming.…”

Blame and accountability in family therapy: Making sense of therapeutic spaces discursively.

“…Thus, CA evidence is tangible, empirical, and a justifiable form of outcomes evidence that is useful for the examination of therapeutic process and change (Strong et al, 2008). Ultimately, therefore, CA research has a lot to offer the field of family therapy, when conducted well (Tseliou, 2013) and approaches that focus on language can facilitate therapists' reflexivity about their contributions to therapeutic dialogue (Patrika and Tseliou, 2015).…”

“…The use of these approaches has the potential to reveal important practices within the family therapeutic environment (Tseliou, 2013). By examining actual family therapeutic interactions and focusing on language, we aim to demonstrate some of the ways in which parents display their 'good parenting' within a systemic therapy environment and explore how blame is managed.…”

Building a case for good parenting in a family therapy systemic environment: resisting blame and accounting for children's behaviour

“…Specifically, conversation and discourse analysts have revealed important insights into clinical areas, such as child counselling (Hutchby, ), paediatrics (Stivers, ), child psychiatry (O'Reilly et al ., ) and psychotherapy (Georgaca and Avdi, ). The use of these approaches has a potential to reveal important practices in the family therapeutic environment (Tseliou, ). By examining actual family therapeutic interactions and focusing on language, we aim to demonstrate some of the ways in which parents display their ‘good parenting’ in a systemic therapy environment and explore how blame is managed.…”