Discursive Research and Clinical Realities, or the Eye of the Beholder

Abstract

The comparison of four discursive and conversational analysis studies performed on the same couple consultation session, held by Tom Andersen, show a diversity of results. It can be argued the results are so varied that they constitute different realities, often incompatible with each other. This, far from being a shortcoming of these studies, can be seen as the true richness they can offer to the practicing therapist, who can use research to investigate the different perspectives we can adopt in viewing our clinical activity. The comparison of the four studies raises questions about the role of the therapist in such process. Clinical implications of this are also discussed.

Discursive Methodologies for Couple and Family Therapy Research: Editorial to Special Section

“…The section consists of four articles which demonstrate four different modes of analysis, namely conversation analysis (Smoliak et al., ), discursive psychology type of discourse analysis (O'Reilly, Lester, & Kiyimba, ), poststructurally informed discourse analysis (Guilfoyle, ), and semantic analysis (Ugazio, ) as well as an introductory article (Gehart, ) which contextualizes the articles’ “data” by presenting a brief overview of Tom Andersen's contribution in the field. It also includes three invited commentaries (Anderson, ; Bertrando, ; Lebow, ) with the aim to foster dialogue concerning the section's input.…”

“…Like Anderson (), we think that there is potential in inviting clinicians to find ways to incorporate research in everyday psychotherapeutic practice. As Bertrando () notes, the different readings offered by different research methodologies can be enriching for the practicing clinician, despite the inevitable reductionism in any attempt to capture the complexity of psychotherapeutic practice.…”