“…“Holding ideas lightly” thus represents a shorthand description of a number of concepts across different dialogical approaches. However, “holding ideas lightly” is also consistent with post‐Milan family therapy where the concept of “irreverence” – that therapists must stay dis‐loyal and “not fall in love” with their hypothesis (Cecchin et al, 1992) – has been promoted as a way to encourage therapists' curiosity and to mitigate potential negative effects of unhelpful, and potentially violent, hypothesizing. “Holding ideas lightly” may thus represent a moral position held by participants that is not restricted to only dialogical approaches.…”
Open Dialogue is a collaborative approach to mental health care emphasizing integrated services and a dialogical psychotherapy approach. Open Dialogue training programs eschew traditional didactic teaching of technical therapeutic skills in favor of more experiential learning processes. It is unclear how these training programs affect trainees and shape their perspectives on Open Dialogue. Our aim was to follow up a group of Australian Open Dialogue trainees and explore their perspectives on learning processes and psychotherapeutic practice. We utilized a prospective focus group design with data from audio‐recorded focus groups convened before (n = 2) and after (n = 3) participants completing an advanced Open Dialogue training program. Data were subjected to reflective thematic analysis. We identified the theme “Extending possibilities by holding ideas lightly,” which represented a universal principle that participants applied to multiple aspects of their practice, for example, favoring multiple perspectives and approaches to therapy, including those other than Open Dialogue. This theme had two sub‐themes: (1) “Allowing intimacy by being aware of personal biographies” and (2) “Learning by joining others,” which reflected an increased willingness by participants to reflect on and share their inner experiences and an emphasis on joint experiential exercises in the training program. “Extending possibilities by holding ideas lightly” facilitated a means of incorporating a dialogical perspective into existing practices thus avoiding the potential barriers to a wholesale implementation of Open Dialogue. Findings indicated that the participants were not learning how to practice a therapeutic technique or propositional knowledge, but were socialized into a dialogical way of being.
“…“Holding ideas lightly” thus represents a shorthand description of a number of concepts across different dialogical approaches. However, “holding ideas lightly” is also consistent with post‐Milan family therapy where the concept of “irreverence” – that therapists must stay dis‐loyal and “not fall in love” with their hypothesis (Cecchin et al, 1992) – has been promoted as a way to encourage therapists' curiosity and to mitigate potential negative effects of unhelpful, and potentially violent, hypothesizing. “Holding ideas lightly” may thus represent a moral position held by participants that is not restricted to only dialogical approaches.…”
Open Dialogue is a collaborative approach to mental health care emphasizing integrated services and a dialogical psychotherapy approach. Open Dialogue training programs eschew traditional didactic teaching of technical therapeutic skills in favor of more experiential learning processes. It is unclear how these training programs affect trainees and shape their perspectives on Open Dialogue. Our aim was to follow up a group of Australian Open Dialogue trainees and explore their perspectives on learning processes and psychotherapeutic practice. We utilized a prospective focus group design with data from audio‐recorded focus groups convened before (n = 2) and after (n = 3) participants completing an advanced Open Dialogue training program. Data were subjected to reflective thematic analysis. We identified the theme “Extending possibilities by holding ideas lightly,” which represented a universal principle that participants applied to multiple aspects of their practice, for example, favoring multiple perspectives and approaches to therapy, including those other than Open Dialogue. This theme had two sub‐themes: (1) “Allowing intimacy by being aware of personal biographies” and (2) “Learning by joining others,” which reflected an increased willingness by participants to reflect on and share their inner experiences and an emphasis on joint experiential exercises in the training program. “Extending possibilities by holding ideas lightly” facilitated a means of incorporating a dialogical perspective into existing practices thus avoiding the potential barriers to a wholesale implementation of Open Dialogue. Findings indicated that the participants were not learning how to practice a therapeutic technique or propositional knowledge, but were socialized into a dialogical way of being.
“…It is possible that other perspectives on dialogical practices, situated in different social contexts, would profit from alternative and supplementing theories that would strengthen therapists’ and researchers’ “irreverence” (Cecchin, Lane, & Ray, 1992) towards dominant ideas. By adopting a social equity lens and alternative theory beyond polyphony, we hope to invite future research that applies different lenses through which to examine dialogical processes.…”
Open Dialogue is a family/social network‐centered psychotherapeutic approach to responding to people in crisis and distress. In 2017, Open Dialogue network meetings were implemented in an Australian inner‐city shelter for disadvantaged women. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of participating in these meetings from the perspective of service users and Open Dialogue practitioners. Qualitative interviews were completed with thirteen participants (six service users and seven practitioners) and analyzed thematically. The findings suggested that dialogical processes created safety by attending to multiple voices in nonviolent ways that reduced perceived hierarchies. Notions of expertise were renegotiated, which allowed the women to feel heard in significant ways that were different from their previous experiences with other social and healthcare services. Open Dialogue is an approach that can meaningfully attend to some of the power relations within which women live and within which social and health care services are provided.
As a psychologist and family therapist my professional education has had a significant impact on my personal life and how I see the world. Over the past four years I have been privileged enough to work on a PhD, which has again changed my perspective. This research examines Open Dialogue sessions using conversation analysis, which focuses on normative conversational structures and how they are utilised to achieve social actions. Conversation analysis forced me to abandon previous therapeutic concepts and look at Open Dialogue and family therapy generally from an interdisciplinary perspective. Through this process I have noticed a few recurring ideas: interactions are sequential, psychotherapy involves abstraction, and power is unavoidable and not inherently ‘bad.’ In this article, I elaborate on these ideas in the first person and how they have changed the way I practice and think about family therapy with reference to the appropriate research and literature.
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.