‘What works?’ Remarks on Research Aspects of Solution‐Focused Brief Therapy

Abstract

aThis special issue on research aspects of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy is timely and needed. We are pleased that the Journal of Family Therapy decided to embark on this endeavour. Because the model developed deductively, that is, first try something, then see if that worked, try to describe it in detail, etc., the approach can be described as experimental and research orientated from the beginning. Years later, when we read what Lincoln and Guba (1985) wrote about 'naturalistic inquiry', we saw that what we were doing was sufficient in itself as a research endeavour.We started out by seeing clients in our living room with the video camera (and operator/team member) on the landing of our stairs; the consulting break was taken in one of the upstairs bedrooms. We were interested in finding out what differences made a difference and we were not at all interested in proving anything to the outside world. Now that the approach is becoming more accepted by academia, including those with scientific minds and backgrounds in traditional research methods, it is coming under the same kind of scrutiny as other approaches and is being measured by the standard ways of assessing effectiveness. We not only lacked the resources to undertake such studies, but the basic assumptions and premises of the two worlds clashed. Being clinically orientated, we were more than satisfied with our naturalistic research projects.Although Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) began to develop in 1980 and we gave it its name in 1982, research into the approach -other than our own exploratory/experimental, model/theory construction research projects (de Shazer, 1985(de Shazer, , 1988(de Shazer, , 1991(de Shazer, , 1994 and our own follow-ups -has been minimal. Primarily this is due to BFTC's having been a teaching-and trainingfocused endeavour. We and our clients were busy inventing a rather radical approach to 'therapy'. We were interested in 'searching' for

Approaching solutions or avoiding problems? The differential effects of approach and avoidance goals with solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions

“…As such, coaching has foundational links with the approaches pioneered by SF practitioners in the fields of counselling, psychotherapy and family therapy (de Shazer & Berg, 1997). Such interventions focus on emphasising the client's personal strengths and resources, focusing on their future goals and potential solutions (Franklin, 2015).…”

Strategies to Enhance Interpersonal Relations in Academic Advising

“…Scaling questions are generally associated with solutions-focused approaches (deShazer & Berg, 1997) and invite individuals to consider placing their concern or issue on a scale from 0 to 10. For example, a scaling question for an advisee could be, "On a scale of 0 to 10, with a 0 being no confidence whatsoever and 10 being completely confident, how confident are you that you will complete the semester with a 3.0 (B) average in your course work?"…”

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Fobi ile Başa Çıkmalarında Çözüm Odaklı Grupla Psikolojik Danışmanın Etkisinin İncelenmesi

“…Çözüm odaklı kısa süreli psikolojik danışmada, danışma süreci genellikle 10 oturumu geçmez. Bu yaklaşımın başlıca teknikleri arasında ise; mucize soru tekniği, derecelendirme soruları tekniği, kristal küre tekniği ve nadir anlar tekniği sayılabilir (De Shazer,1985;De Shazer & Berg, 1997;De Jong & Berg,1998;Lethem, 2002;Murdock, 2012;Murphy,1997). Yukarıdaki bilgilerden hareketle bu çalışma, üniversite gençliğinde yaygın ve önemli bir psikolojik problem olarak görülen sosyal fobiyi ele alması, üniversite öğrencilerine sosyal fobi ile başa çıkma becerisi kazandırabilecek bir program sunması ve sosyal fobi ile başa çıkmada mevcut tekniklere ek olarak postmodern yaklaşımlardan biri olan çözüm odaklı kısa süreli psikolojik danışmanın etkisini sınaması bakımından önemli ve yararlı görülmektedir.…”

“…Bu programın geliştirilmesi için öncelikle yurtiçi ve yurtdışı alan yazın taraması yapılmıştır (Bulut, 2008;De Jong & Berg, 1998;De Shazer, 1997;De Shazer & Berg, 1997;De Shazer & Isebaert, 2004;İşlek, 2006;Köktuna, 2007;Murphy, 1997;O'Connell, 2001;Proudlock & Wellman 2011;Sklare, 2013;Tuna, 2012 Tablo 4'e göre deney-1 grubunun son-test puanları ile deney-2 grubunun son-test puanları arasında anlamlı düzeyde bir farklılaşmanın olmadığı bulunmuştur (U=30.50, p>.05). Ayrıca kontrol-1 grubunun sontest puanları ile kontrol-2 grubunun son-test puanları arasında da anlamlı düzeyde bir farklılaşmanın olmadığı bulunmuştur (U=30.00, p>.05).…”