“…In the systemic psychotherapy field, particularly in work on the therapeutic relationship, and the therapeutic alliance, there has been continued debate about how therapists can most ethically and effectively position themselves in relation to power issues arising. The emphasis has been on therapists being reflexive about their positioning and prejudices to achieve this (Burnham, ; Donovan, ; Fruggeri, ; Krause, ; Malik and Mandin, ). Zimmerman (, p. 221) argues that therapists ‘ought to acknowledge power rather than to ignore it or to conceal their power simply by calling their therapy collaborative’.…”
Social care settings provide a complex landscape for systemic psychotherapists, particularly in relation to issues of power that are particularly pervasive. Conversation Analysis (CA) was used as a research method to understand the detail of how systemic psychotherapists and parents work together in the safeguarding context. The study aimed to examine the power issues arising, and how they were being managed. CA literature, seen as a reminder of the centrality of ‘talk as action’, is used as a lens through which to present the findings, and the concept of authority as joint action is introduced. The findings of the study showed how systemic approaches, put to use through systemic techniques, can uniquely contribute to safeguarding work in contexts where issues of power prevail, with a particular emphasis on the importance of the concept of self‐reflexivity.
Practitioner points
Notice and work with the complex circular ways that power issues arise in relationships in social care settings
Use the concept of Jointly Created Authority to provide a relational frame for managing issues of power
Revisit the concept of self‐reflexivity which is of primary importance to effective working in this context
Develop understanding of how, using reflexive practice, adjusting responses in the moment can invite agency in clients
“…In the systemic psychotherapy field, particularly in work on the therapeutic relationship, and the therapeutic alliance, there has been continued debate about how therapists can most ethically and effectively position themselves in relation to power issues arising. The emphasis has been on therapists being reflexive about their positioning and prejudices to achieve this (Burnham, ; Donovan, ; Fruggeri, ; Krause, ; Malik and Mandin, ). Zimmerman (, p. 221) argues that therapists ‘ought to acknowledge power rather than to ignore it or to conceal their power simply by calling their therapy collaborative’.…”
Social care settings provide a complex landscape for systemic psychotherapists, particularly in relation to issues of power that are particularly pervasive. Conversation Analysis (CA) was used as a research method to understand the detail of how systemic psychotherapists and parents work together in the safeguarding context. The study aimed to examine the power issues arising, and how they were being managed. CA literature, seen as a reminder of the centrality of ‘talk as action’, is used as a lens through which to present the findings, and the concept of authority as joint action is introduced. The findings of the study showed how systemic approaches, put to use through systemic techniques, can uniquely contribute to safeguarding work in contexts where issues of power prevail, with a particular emphasis on the importance of the concept of self‐reflexivity.
Practitioner points
Notice and work with the complex circular ways that power issues arise in relationships in social care settings
Use the concept of Jointly Created Authority to provide a relational frame for managing issues of power
Revisit the concept of self‐reflexivity which is of primary importance to effective working in this context
Develop understanding of how, using reflexive practice, adjusting responses in the moment can invite agency in clients
“…Exploring attendees' understanding of the purpose of the set‐up of consultations (as opposed to other ways of meeting) may be helpful. Burnham () drew on Bateson's () ideas that “warm ideas” are more likely to continue than “cold ideas” and applied this to conversations in therapy where the context needed to be “warmed.” “Warming the context” could consist of sharing values, hopes and principles for systemic consultations more explicitly with individuals attending systemic consultations. Haydon‐Laurelut, Bissmire, and Hall () also discussed the importance of “warming the context” in working with care staff in systemic consultations in CLDSs.…”
Accessible Summary
People with learning disabilities may have help from their families, paid carers and professionals such as nurses, psychologists etc. Professionals (like psychologists) can help people with learning disabilities and their families, carers and other professionals by meeting to talk about solutions together. This is called a systemic consultation.
We asked two people who came to the systemic consultations what they thought was helpful and unhelpful about the systemic consultations. The two people we asked were two professionals who worked with people with learning disabilities.
The helpful things were that the systemic consultations might have helped people to feel better about themselves and speak about their worries. People may feel that others care about them too. People with learning disabilities started to find their own answers to the difficulties they had. We found that the people who were responsible for the systemic consultations asked some helpful questions. For example, they spoke in a positive way and tried to talk about the things that people were good at. Another helpful thing was that coming to the systemic consultations helped people to get on better with each other.
The unhelpful things were that people coming to the systemic consultations thought that something else would happen at the consultations. They also thought that sometimes there were too many people at the systemic consultations. They said that it was not helpful if the people who help in the systemic consultations change.
After looking at the answers the people gave, we talked about the things that can be done to make sure that systemic consultations become more helpful for everyone.
Abstract
BackgroundSystemic approaches can be useful in working with people with learning disabilities and their network. The evidence base for these approaches within the field of learning disabilities, however, is currently limited.
Materials and MethodsThis article presents part of a service evaluation of systemic consultations in a Community Learning Disability Service (CLDS). Two multidisciplinary team professionals were interviewed about what they found helpful and unhelpful in their experiences of attending systemic consultations. Interview data were analysed via applying thematic analysis principles.
ResultsFive main themes were elicited: differing expectations, enabling for the client, positive techniques, uncertainty regarding “forum” (“forum” meaning the collective of all of the individuals meet, which could include the professionals, lead therapist, reflecting team, etc.) composition and strengthening the network.
ConclusionsSystemic consultations provided some positive and valuable experiences along with important caveats. Considerations for clinical practice are therefore discussed. Continued evaluation of systemic consultations within CLDSs is recommended.
“…The practitioner’s role or lens requires explicit acknowledgement and is central to the reflecting team process and a systemic way of working (Andersen, ; Burnham, ; Hedges, ). A practitioner’s person‐hood will provide both the way of receiving and responding to the material presented (Burnham, ; Pendry, 2012a, b).…”
Section: Systemic Social Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Self‐reflexivity is described as a posture whereby the practitioner:takes or grasps an opportunity to … observe … listen to … question … the effects of their practice, then use their responses to their observation/listening to decide ‘how to go on’. (Burnham, : 3)…”
This research aimed to consider the impact of introducing the systemic approach to child protection practice through the forum of group reflective supervision. A single case discussion was observed, recorded and transcribed and the data interpreted using thematic analysis (Braun and Clark, 2006). The social workers observed were trained in the systemic approach to foundation level. The data generated showed social workers using hypotheses to put forward ideas about a family shaped by systemic principles. However the inclusion of a pathologising discourse about a mother being blind to the sexual abuse of her daughter and an absence of self‐reflexivity suggested social workers were limited by linear thinking. The paper uses this data to suggest a tension between systemic practice and the child protection paradigm. The findings illustrate the challenge of occupying a systemic posture (the being) and the application of systemic concepts and techniques (the doing) in child protection. This paper recommends that systemic practice be taught and supported in social work to shape a more robustly reflexive systemic ‘being’ in the child protection context.
Practitioner points
There are tensions in applying systemic principles in social work contexts that create unique challenges for practitioners
Without due attention to systemic epistemology in group reflective supervision, practitioners can rely too much on techniques to the detriment of reflexivity
Hypothesising in the child protection context can be useful in the work but can be constrained by institutional pressures
Without paying attention to circularity and reflexivity, hypotheses can recreate pathologising discourses
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.
