Solution-Focused vs Narrative Therapy - Term Paper Example

Comparison between Narrative Therapy and Solution-focused Therapy Name: Institution: Instructor: Date of Submission: Introduction There are important historical links and similarities between narrative and solution-focused therapy. Despite the fact that both therapies have different explanations, they both offer alternative narratives to a very similar pattern. However, they both evolved differently and were born out of very distinct proponents. Solution-focused therapy is based on the principle of optimistic assumption that individuals are healthy and competent with the capabilities of being resourceful and being in a position to find solutions to their own problems. Individuals tend to lose grip on their competencies and lose direction hence it is the task of the therapist to assist clients establish what their strengths are, and put them into use to finding the right solutions to their problems. The solution-focused approach, for instance, is based on the understanding that each problem a client or an individual goes through has exceptions to it. For example, such instances when a certain problem ought to have occurred, but somehow failed to happen. This theory therefore entails a scrupulous search for such exceptions so as to center the search for solutions around such exceptions. To identify the exceptions to a certain problem being faced by the clients is a tedious task since these exceptions tend to be very small, and in most cases hard to recognize. To be in a position to identify them, the therapist’s communication skills need to be at a very high point. Once the exceptions have been identified, they are developed in a manner so as to come up or create a picture of what the future would look like without the underlying problem. Narrative approach, on the other hand, is also highly dependent on the listening skills as its main focus is to avail options for telling and retelling of stories about the client’s life by doing away with the intellectual stories that dominate the client’s life story. Such stories that are deconstructed include those that isolate and subjugate the client, those stories that they feel are part of their lives but still pose as a source or cause of problems in the future. Narrative therapy therefore, aims at disputing the belief in people that a certain problem in their lives tends to be their identity or speaks for their identity. This approach tends to separate an individual or a client, in this case, from the problem facing them and opens up a prospect of fresh responsibilities that enable the client to be responsible and be in a position to be accountable in the future. A major difference between the two approaches or therapies is the further precise acknowledgement of issues of power in the narrative approach. Historical Development and the view of Human Nature Solution-focused therapy was born out of the work of the Milwaukee centre for Brief therapy, pioneered in large by De shazer who undertook a research on the therapeutic practice to establish what really worked and what made a difference. He then cut down the identified basics into a solution-focused way of talking with clients. According to Dejong and Insoo kim (2002), the realization made was that at the heart of every problem there are exceptions to the aforesaid problem, and it is in these exceptions that the solutions to the problem lie. This entails that identifying what an individual does or thinks differently that lightens the problem is the task of the individual commencing a therapeutic conversation that is not only aimed at identifying the goals but brings forth hope that the goals are going to be realized. However, it is noted by Trepper et al (2010) that despite the fact that more emphasis is on the behavior and thoughts that the client shows or has during the exception to the problem, it is also important to put into consideration the emotions he shows. Such emotions are depicted by the laughter and or the tears brought out during the conversation. Despite not ignoring the emotions nonetheless, the therapeutic worker’s focus is not primarily on the emotions but how the emotion is noticeable in behavior ( Berg, 1994). Solution-focused talk has been the subject of criticism in the past that it is a perfunctory and artificial method of holding a therapeutic conversation. However, this approach is helpful in that it assists the solution-focused worker who is commencing the process in maintaining a future orientation and evade asking the “why question”. O’connell (1998) indicates that this approach helps the client to feel better understood and is therefore essentially empathic. The solution-focused approach has in itself three phases, the first phase is the assessment of the problem of the client, establishing whether there are any exception to the problem and the progress made in resolving the problem. The client is also issued with a message that has in it the thoughts on the possible solutions and the possible strengths that can be put into use (Simon, 2009). On the other hand, Narrative therapy originated from the work of White and Epston at the Dulwich centre in Adelaide. It’s based on challenging the beliefs of individuals that the problem they face is an illustration of their identity (Minuchin, 1998). Through a conversation, the worker undertaking the therapy is able to look into or explore the client’s experience of the problem so as to have an overview of how the client has been influenced by the problem and how the individual can influence the said problem. The interpretation of this approach is based on how the clients can exert meaning into their lives without being entered into stories by other individuals with regard to their lives. It is noted by Etchison and Kleist (2000) that the therapist hands over the role of expertise of the client’s life to him but still retains some influence with respect to the questions being asked to dispute unhelpful stories. For example, by asking a client if they can alter the ending of a habitual nightmare they have been experiencing is being influential. Incidentally, by asking the client what would be kind of end that they would wish for in the nightmare, the therapist is handing the expertise for finding a solution to said client. Key Concepts & Assumptions Both therapies, however, can be mutual in some practices as they have common ideas regarding the distinctiveness of individuals, both of them are more focused on the present and the future of the clients instead of the failures in their past and they are both aimed at solving problems through use of expertise of understanding the problem at hand in order to assist the clients erect their own competencies (Gutterman, 1996). Both the narrative and the solution-focused approach are built on the same basic philosophy that individuals are the masters or experts in their own lives despite that expertise having been dented by the structural inequalities that affect the lives of many clients as well as the traditional methods of explaining the behavior of human beings which are quite unreliable. (Madigan, 1996). With the expertise brought about by these two approaches through high degrees of communication skills amidst the atmosphere of uncertainty, the clients are empowered to be in a position to find solutions to their problems and be responsible for their own behavior. With this underlying principle, if a problem does not exist it cannot be solved, if something works to solve a problem then its advisable to do it a lot more or more of it and if something does not work one should try something different. Guterman (2006) notes that these principles also apply to the therapist in that, if the current methods employed in his service are working for him or her and the clients are happy with the results, he or she should do more of it. However, if he or she finds themselves stuck with the client or having conflicts in the course of the therapy, it is advisable to apply something else or consider applying both the solution-focused and the narrative approach simultaneously in their work. That way the therapist finds themselves with an elevated cooperation in the course of their work, outcomes that are measurable and an opportunity to rediscover their communication skills. According to Murphy (1997), there is some similarity in the assumptions of both the narrative and solution-focused therapies. For instance, the assumption that the clients remain stuck with the problems because their thinking is centered on the problem hence restricting the client from identifying the effective ways in which they have dealt with the problem in the past. The solution-focused approach also emphasizes that there is no certain or any particular problem that is constant and change cannot be evaded. Through this approach clients are able to learn how to orient themselves to any positive change that occurs in their quest to solve the underlying problem. This theory also assumes that clients are only focused on their one side that they feel is a problem to them and hinders them from achieving their goals thereby encouraging them to look at their other sides. The narrative therapy approach, on the other hand, assumes that its main focus is to challenge the conservative acquaintance and the hypothesis of how the world is seen to look like by individuals. It also assumes that there is not a specific or particular manner in which individuals are supposed to lead their lives because it is through the social course of life and exchanges that knowledge is constructed. According to the narrative therapy, these two aspects, that is the knowledge and the social action goes hand by hand. Therapeutic Procedures, Goals, Relationship and the Role of the Therapist For one to be in a position to put up with the differing explanations of problems by clients there is need to maintain professional integrity, conduct and retain the role of an expert and ignore some power attributes such as individual and structural inequalities. Some of the main underlying similarities between the narrative and the solution-focused approaches include, both involve conversations that are aimed at accepting the experiences of the clients, they are both aimed at finding a solution to the underlying problem and they tend to identify the uniqueness in individuals so as to assist in searching for competencies away from the problem (Madigan,1996). Just like in solution-focused approaches, solutions are built in narrative approach. However, Dejong and Insoo Kim (2000) note that while solution-focused approaches are based on constructivism, narrative ones are firmly positioned within post structuralism. Conversations in the narrative theory are flowing as compared to solution-focused approaches despite there being essential elements used to deconstruct problems before the solutions are constructed. The initial stage, that is, the preliminary stage of the conversations is the same in both the narrative and the solution-focused approach especially on the open acknowledgement of an individual’s own values and the limitations brought about by an individual’s understanding of human behavior. Questions that follow the preliminary phase are basically aimed at challenging leading intellectual stories regarding the problem, establishing unique outcomes and externalizing problems. As a new story develops through the conversation the therapeutic worker works towards strengthening it commonly referred to by Narrative therapists as “Thickening the counter plot” (Trepper et al, 2010). Unlike in solution-focused therapy, where the therapist search for exceptions to problems hence indulging more into a problem free talk, in Narrative approach, the deconstruction of a problem involves the search for exclusive outcomes. Minuchin (1998) indicates that, in separating the client from the problem, the narrative approach has some similarities to the solution-focused approach, in that, the therapist or the therapeutic worker aims at getting to know the individual separately from the problem by laying down what unique qualities and ideas they possess without ignoring the problem. In narrative therapy, a problem is viewed as the problem separately from the client, however, some problems might carry a lot of weight that they put an individual out of action. This is because when an individual thinks of a certain problem as an integral part of their character, it is such a hard task for them to change (Fish, 1993). For example, when someone thinks of themselves as “ I am a bad person” or “I am an Addict” such problematic stories restricts people particularly when the expert solution to their problem fails to work hence leaving them unsatisfied. Unraveling an individual from the problem through an externalizing conversation relieves them pressure from blaming themselves, being defensive and enhances a person to have a different view and relate differently to the problem. Solution-focused therapy is basically aimed at helping an individual determine exactly in what ways they’d like their life to change and further assisting such individuals to attain that through the use of strengths and experiences they have. The therapist asks questions aimed at achieving this such as; what would be different in the client’s life were they to achieve what they desire, or what would they do differently for them to achieve that change from what he or she does currently. Solution-focused therapy believes that individual clients are in a position to set up their own personal goals that are stated positively in the client’s language, that tend to be action oriented, whose focus is on the present, goals that are practical, attainable, able to be gauged and unique to the individual clients. The narrative therapy, on the other hand, is built around the idea that individuals relate their lives to a story so as to make them seem sensible. Through the multiple stories created with regard to an individual’s relationships, wishes, achievements and failures, individuals keep assigning meaning to these stories due to their interpretative nature. However, the stories that individuals hold with respect to their lives play a significant part in shaping them, what they do and how they perceive of themselves. Strengths and Limitations Despite their theoretical differences, both the narrative therapy and the solution-focused therapy stress on the reflexibility of postmodernism. Whereas solution-focused approach is founded on the fact that fixed truths are non-existent, Narrative approach emphasizes that some social truths carry more weight in comparison to others. Both approaches however are aimed at breaking the link between clients and their problems and enable them to live a new life filled with new possibilities while at the same time being responsible and accountable. Most clients under the solution-focused therapy tend to justify what they believe in with regard to life and tend to believe that their situations or problems cant be changed hence they cant achieve their goals. However the solution-focused therapy aims at paying attention to what works in a client’s life unlike the problem focused approach which is depicted by the traditional methods of therapy. Both the solution-focused and the Narrative therapy are faced by almost the same limitations. For instance, the fact that both approaches call for the therapist to assume a “not Knowing” stance may lead clients to undermine the expertise of the therapist hence minimizing their confidence in them. These approaches are also limited by the notion that, at some point, the therapist may approach a client’s story having already preconceived the experiences that the client has undergone. Such an instance would not be in line with the principles of Narrative therapy. Just as it is the case with narrative therapy, Solution-focused therapy also tends to be limited by the notion that the therapist might put in action the technique in a limited proportion hence not achieving its whole potential. It is also limited by the fact that being too reliant on the technique can alleviate the focus of building a mutual therapeutic relationship. One major difficulty in explaining narrative and solution-focused approaches is that most individuals tend to recognize what is memorable to them instead of what is unusual. One difference with the narrative and solution-focused approach and the traditional approaches is the problem with the aspect of individual uniqueness. It is impossible to bring together the individual uniqueness within a diagnostic process which categorizes and brings many individuals together. It is therefore more likely to find a psychotherapist whose clients come on voluntary basis in conflict with her clients whose individual stories do not match the expert diagnosis. However most clients are unable to protest incase of such conflict apart from only passively. Conclusion From the two approaches discussed above, it is quite evident that both the solution-focused and the narrative therapy are built on the same philosophy in that, individuals are experts in their own lives hence there is no need for diagnosis and classification. Both theories indicate that there is no necessity to understand what causes problems so as to reach a solution while also insisting on the importance of distinction of an individual from the problem. Both therapies advocate to clients to focus more on their strengths rather than their weaknesses. In other words that means that the theories are focused on the future rather than the past happenings or client’s failures and are driven by the desire to succeed and not to fail. The therapies however do not only emphasize on discovering the positives but also making the client responsible and accountable towards finding their own solutions.. It is advisable for any therapist carrying out the process on a client to keep his focus on the things that the client wants rather than what they don’t want and also to advance to each session as if it was the last one as this would help to see to it that the therapy does not take too much time. Whilst undertaking the therapy, the therapist should take a neutral position so as to encourage clients see themselves as experts of their own lives. They should also use a language that is similar to that of the client with regard to the tone and volume thereby creating an atmosphere of dialogue and mutual respect. References Berg, I. K. (1994) Family based services: A solution-focused approach. New York: Norton. De Jong, P. and Insoo Kim, B. (2002) Interviewing for Solutions Brooks Cole Publishers, 2nd edition Etchison, M., & Kleist, D.M. (2000). Review of Narrative Therapy: Research and Review, Family Journal 8(1) 61-67 Fish, V. (1993). Post Structuralism in Family Therapy: Interrogating the Narrative/Conversational Mode. Journal of Family Therapy 19(3) 221-232 Guterman, J.T. (2006). Mastering the Art of Solution-Focused Counseling. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. ISBN 1-55620-267-9 Guterman, J.T. (1996). Doing mental health counseling: A social constructionist re-vision. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18, 228-252. Murphy, J.J. (1997). Solution-focused counseling in middle and high schools. American Counseling Association: Alexandria, VA. Minuchin, S. (1998). Where is the Family in Narrative Family Therapy? Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 24(4), 397-403 Madigan, S. (1996). The Politics of Identity: Considering Community Discourse In The Externalizing of Internalized Problem Conversations, Journal of Systemic Therapies, 15(1), 47-62 O’Connell, B. (1998). Solution Focused Therapy. Sage publishers. Simon, K. (2009), Solution focused practice in end-of-life and grief counseling. New York: Springer Publication.. Trepper, S., Eric E., Peter, J., Harry, K., Wallace,G., and Cynthia, F. (2010). Solution focused therapy treatment manual for working with individuals. [Hammond, IN]: Research Committee of the Solution Focused Brief Therapy Association. Read More

Historical Development and the view of Human Nature Solution-focused therapy was born out of the work of the Milwaukee centre for Brief therapy, pioneered in large by De shazer who undertook a research on the therapeutic practice to establish what really worked and what made a difference. He then cut down the identified basics into a solution-focused way of talking with clients. According to Dejong and Insoo kim (2002), the realization made was that at the heart of every problem there are exceptions to the aforesaid problem, and it is in these exceptions that the solutions to the problem lie.

This entails that identifying what an individual does or thinks differently that lightens the problem is the task of the individual commencing a therapeutic conversation that is not only aimed at identifying the goals but brings forth hope that the goals are going to be realized. However, it is noted by Trepper et al (2010) that despite the fact that more emphasis is on the behavior and thoughts that the client shows or has during the exception to the problem, it is also important to put into consideration the emotions he shows.

Such emotions are depicted by the laughter and or the tears brought out during the conversation. Despite not ignoring the emotions nonetheless, the therapeutic worker’s focus is not primarily on the emotions but how the emotion is noticeable in behavior ( Berg, 1994). Solution-focused talk has been the subject of criticism in the past that it is a perfunctory and artificial method of holding a therapeutic conversation. However, this approach is helpful in that it assists the solution-focused worker who is commencing the process in maintaining a future orientation and evade asking the “why question”.

O’connell (1998) indicates that this approach helps the client to feel better understood and is therefore essentially empathic. The solution-focused approach has in itself three phases, the first phase is the assessment of the problem of the client, establishing whether there are any exception to the problem and the progress made in resolving the problem. The client is also issued with a message that has in it the thoughts on the possible solutions and the possible strengths that can be put into use (Simon, 2009).

On the other hand, Narrative therapy originated from the work of White and Epston at the Dulwich centre in Adelaide. It’s based on challenging the beliefs of individuals that the problem they face is an illustration of their identity (Minuchin, 1998). Through a conversation, the worker undertaking the therapy is able to look into or explore the client’s experience of the problem so as to have an overview of how the client has been influenced by the problem and how the individual can influence the said problem.

The interpretation of this approach is based on how the clients can exert meaning into their lives without being entered into stories by other individuals with regard to their lives. It is noted by Etchison and Kleist (2000) that the therapist hands over the role of expertise of the client’s life to him but still retains some influence with respect to the questions being asked to dispute unhelpful stories. For example, by asking a client if they can alter the ending of a habitual nightmare they have been experiencing is being influential.

Incidentally, by asking the client what would be kind of end that they would wish for in the nightmare, the therapist is handing the expertise for finding a solution to said client. Key Concepts & Assumptions Both therapies, however, can be mutual in some practices as they have common ideas regarding the distinctiveness of individuals, both of them are more focused on the present and the future of the clients instead of the failures in their past and they are both aimed at solving problems through use of expertise of understanding the problem at hand in order to assist the clients erect their own competencies (Gutterman, 1996).

Both the narrative and the solution-focused approach are built on the same basic philosophy that individuals are the masters or experts in their own lives despite that expertise having been dented by the structural inequalities that affect the lives of many clients as well as the traditional methods of explaining the behavior of human beings which are quite unreliable.

Read More