Downgrading Deontic Authority in Open Dialogue Reflection Proposals: A Conversation Analysis

Abstract

The Open Dialogue approach promotes collaboration with clients and families in decisions about the direction of therapy. This creates potential problems for Open Dialogue therapists who seek collaboration but also have responsibility for managing the session. Using conversation analysis, we examined 14 hours of video recordings of Open Dialogue sessions, and specifically how therapists proposed the transition to a reflecting conversation. We found that, when making proposals to reflect, therapists routinely downgrade their deontic authority (i.e., adopt a less powerful, more collaborative position). They did this through framing proposals as interrogatives, providing accounts, and by prefacing their proposals with “I’m wondering”. More heavily downgraded proposals made acceptance less salient, potentially risking transition to the reflection. These findings provide more detail on how theoretical concepts such as “collaboration” and “power” are actually displayed and negotiated in practice and can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes Open Dialogue.

Developing multiple perspectives by eliding agreement: A conversation analysis of Open Dialogue reflections

“…This included first viewing and transcribing the recordings verbatim and an 'unmotivated looking' for interactions of interest (Psathas, 1995;Schegloff, 1996). These initial viewings yielded a number of conversational practices of interest that have been published previously (Ong et al, 2020c(Ong et al, , 2021. For this study, we examined therapist assertions during reflecting conversations.…”

“…In Open Dialogue reflections, the therapists pause the session with the family, and turn to each other to speak about their thoughts, images, feelings or experiences that arose during the conversation with the family (Andersen, 1987;Olson et al, 2014;Ong et al, 2020c). The family is encouraged to listen to this conversation without speaking until the reflection is finished, at which point the family is invited to respond to the therapists' reflections (Seikkula, 2008).…”

“…CA studies have identified that therapists can respond to client disagreements by retreating from their prior formulation to affiliate and strengthen the client's alternative position (Muntigl et al, 2013), or the therapist can maintain their position in either a convergent and supportive way or a divergent and unsupportive way, implying that either the therapist's or the client's understanding was in need of correction (Viklund et al, 2010;Weiste, 2015;Muntigl et al, 2013). More recent studies have shown how therapists work to downgrade both their deontic and epistemic authority in Structural Family Therapy and Open Dialogue sessions (Muntigl and Horvath, 2020;Ong et al, 2020cOng et al, , 2021. By downgrading their epistemic authority through phrases such as 'what I hear.…”

Interdisciplinary Reflections on Conversation Analysis, Power, and Open Dialogue

“…In this article, I will describe how this new perspective has shaped my thinking, practice, and approach to family therapy. I will therefore write in the first person to emphasise that these ideas reflect my own personal development and how they have changed the way that I view family therapy rather than focusing on the empirical findings of my research, which readers can find elsewhere (Ong, Barnes, & Buus, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2021, 2021). I will briefly say a little about conversation analysis before moving on to some of the more specific ideas that have been interesting to me.…”

“…As noted by Heritage (2013, p. 290), ‘it is within these local sequences of talk, and only there, that these institutions are ultimately and accountably talked into being.’ People may, of course, resist these default positions. For example, parents may exert their authority to describe the relevant symptoms for their child and disagree with doctors’ treatment recommendations (Stivers, 2007) and therapists may downgrade their deontic authority (Ong, Barnes, & Buus, 2020c, 2021). But these examples are notable because they are departures from expectations (Potter, 1996).…”