Contemporary family therapy in the United States

Abstract

Major issues in contemporary family therapy in the United States are described. Issues from outside the field impacting family therapy include health care reform, family ‘values’, multiple forms of ‘family’, and the growing aging population. Issues within the field include the challenge of social construction theory, the decline of the expert, the feminist critique, sensitivity to culture, rediscovering individuals within families, focus on strengths and resources, a both–and attitude toward collaboration with other professionals, emphasis upon the person of the therapist, and convergence of ‘schools’ of family therapy. Therapists in the United States are also opening up the private process of therapy through reflecting teams, including clients in therapist thinking, multi‐family groups, and through psychoeducational groups. Finally, attempts to bridge the gap between research and practice are analyzed.

Practising family therapy in India: how many people are there in a marital subsystem?

“…Writing on multicultural issues, Sprenkle and Bischof (1994) describe the field of family therapy as a complex tapestry in which cultural issues are becoming a prominent thread. They refer mainly to the cultural diversity produced by growing minority populations who are challenging the 'theoretical myth of sameness' (p. 13).…”

Positive Practice in Family Therapy

“…The approach to practice described in this paper is not intended to represent yet another new school of family therapy. Rather, it is part of the current integrationist trend which is sweeping the fields of psychotherapy and family therapy in both the U.S. (Norcross & Goldfried, 1992;Sprenkle & Bischof, 1994) and the UK (Carpenter & Treacher, 1993;Dryden, 1992).…”

‘‘Marriage’’ Misnames ‘‘Couples’’ and Familial Therapies

“…Albeit, systemic movement's pioneers chartered the AAMFT in 1942, MFT practices did not obtain professional stature until 1989 (Sprenkle & Bischof, 1994). MFTs' professional heterogeneity (Broderick & Schrader, 1991) explains why some MFTs embrace (eclectically) conventional MFT frameworks that emerged by middle 20th century.…”