Abstract:The idea of meta‐dialogue has evolved over the past twenty years. The study reported here focuses on meta‐dialogue, analysing the importance of reflective practices for thoughtfulness and embodiment in couple therapy for psychological Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The study also sought to determine whether, in a case of psychological IPV, reflective practices helped the couple to acquire a new, shared understanding of violence. The results showed that the use of both meta‐dialogue and of a reflective team w… Show more
“…In contrast, therapists could take a more active role in selectively shaping the conversation through questions, reflections, and topic and speaker selection. In an example of questioning, the therapist asked a wife who had begun crying: “What are your thoughts about what you're listening to right now?” (Vall et al, 2018, pp. S53–S54).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The wife responds that her husband does not understand and that she should be able to feel and say anything in the home without feeling afraid. It is argued that the therapist's noticing of the wife's crying and the design of their question, prompted a reflexive meta‐dialogue where the “the spouses are no longer talking and arguing about something that has happened in their lives, but instead are reflecting on their own speech and taking their own stance in the therapy setting (they are able to position themselves)” (Vall et al, 2018, pp. S54–S55).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Ong et al, 2021b, p. 125)Therapists thus have a delicate role of exercising power to control the conversation while also minimizing their influence over how a client may expectedly respond. Such an exercise of power is not necessarily inconsistent with a dialogical approach as it has been proposed that the therapist's directive approach is what makes a dialogical interaction possible (Ong et al, 2021a, 2021b; Seikkula & Arnkil, 2006; Vall et al, 2016, 2018).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was a notable absence of research on the power relations between family members. A few studies examined differences in clients' perspectives in couple therapy for psychological intimate partner violence (e.g., Vall et al, 2014Vall et al, , 2016Vall et al, , 2018; however, they tended to focus on the power of the therapist and how they mediated the relative semantic and quantitative dominance of a wife and husband. This is somewhat surprising considering the early critiques of power in family therapy focused on issues of abuse within families and gives the impression that the clients' perspectives are relatively equal especially when mediated through the power of the therapist.…”
Collaborative‐dialogic approaches to family therapy advise therapists to take a position of client‐as‐expert and promote an equality of multiple perspectives. This has led to debates about how to conceptualize power in dialogical therapies with scholars theorizing and researching power as social and negotiated through interaction. We aimed to understand power in dialogical therapy through reviewing discursive research on therapeutic conversations. We performed a systematic search of bibliographical databases PsycINFO, PubMed, and CINAHL. We reviewed the findings from 18 studies utilizing discursive analyses of collaborative‐dialogical therapy sessions and examined their findings in relation to power within interactions. We found a strong focus on the practices of the therapist rather than on those of the client. The therapist was presented as a catalyst of dialogue using minimal and active responses to promote dialogical conversations. Therapists also utilized power in response to broader institutional and social demands that may not be consistent with some interpretations of dialogical therapy. We consider practice implications where the exercise of power to direct a session facilitates dialogical interactions.
“…In contrast, therapists could take a more active role in selectively shaping the conversation through questions, reflections, and topic and speaker selection. In an example of questioning, the therapist asked a wife who had begun crying: “What are your thoughts about what you're listening to right now?” (Vall et al, 2018, pp. S53–S54).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The wife responds that her husband does not understand and that she should be able to feel and say anything in the home without feeling afraid. It is argued that the therapist's noticing of the wife's crying and the design of their question, prompted a reflexive meta‐dialogue where the “the spouses are no longer talking and arguing about something that has happened in their lives, but instead are reflecting on their own speech and taking their own stance in the therapy setting (they are able to position themselves)” (Vall et al, 2018, pp. S54–S55).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Ong et al, 2021b, p. 125)Therapists thus have a delicate role of exercising power to control the conversation while also minimizing their influence over how a client may expectedly respond. Such an exercise of power is not necessarily inconsistent with a dialogical approach as it has been proposed that the therapist's directive approach is what makes a dialogical interaction possible (Ong et al, 2021a, 2021b; Seikkula & Arnkil, 2006; Vall et al, 2016, 2018).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was a notable absence of research on the power relations between family members. A few studies examined differences in clients' perspectives in couple therapy for psychological intimate partner violence (e.g., Vall et al, 2014Vall et al, , 2016Vall et al, , 2018; however, they tended to focus on the power of the therapist and how they mediated the relative semantic and quantitative dominance of a wife and husband. This is somewhat surprising considering the early critiques of power in family therapy focused on issues of abuse within families and gives the impression that the clients' perspectives are relatively equal especially when mediated through the power of the therapist.…”
Collaborative‐dialogic approaches to family therapy advise therapists to take a position of client‐as‐expert and promote an equality of multiple perspectives. This has led to debates about how to conceptualize power in dialogical therapies with scholars theorizing and researching power as social and negotiated through interaction. We aimed to understand power in dialogical therapy through reviewing discursive research on therapeutic conversations. We performed a systematic search of bibliographical databases PsycINFO, PubMed, and CINAHL. We reviewed the findings from 18 studies utilizing discursive analyses of collaborative‐dialogical therapy sessions and examined their findings in relation to power within interactions. We found a strong focus on the practices of the therapist rather than on those of the client. The therapist was presented as a catalyst of dialogue using minimal and active responses to promote dialogical conversations. Therapists also utilized power in response to broader institutional and social demands that may not be consistent with some interpretations of dialogical therapy. We consider practice implications where the exercise of power to direct a session facilitates dialogical interactions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.