Embodiment and reflective practices: conjoint therapy for psychological intimate partner violence

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 was related to clients' use of the reflexive mode. Moreover, embodiment could be understood as a precursor of reflectivity and reflective practices. Finally, the results indicated that it was possible to discuss the issue of violence through the use of meta‐dialogue, and that, through the therapists' reflective dialogue, the clients were able to reflect on their own relational patterns. The importance of meta‐dialogue and embodiment for conjoint therapy in psychological IPV is discussed. Practitioner points Meta‐dialogue is present in therapy as: (a) reflective practices (therapists' strategies to promote a reflective stance); and (b) reflectivity (i.e. action of reflecting) Consider the importance of therapist sensitivity to embodiment in conjoint therapy for IPV in helping to reflect on what is happening in therapy, thus promoting use of meta‐dialogue

Power and dialogue: A review of discursive research

“…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).…”

“…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).…”

“…(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).…”

“…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.…”