Dataciencia

Revista	ISSN
Family Process	0014-7370

Revista

ISSN

Family Process

0014-7370

PlumX

Altmetric

Dimensions

WOS
Psychology, Clinical
Family Studies

WOS

Psychology, Clinical

Family Studies

Scopus
Sin Disciplinas

Scopus

Sin Disciplinas

SciELO
Sin Disciplinas

SciELO

Sin Disciplinas

Ord.	Autor	Género	Institución - País
1	GAETE-SILVA, JOAQUIN	Hombre	Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez - Chile
2	Sametband, Ines	Mujer	Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez - Chile
3	St. George, Sally	Mujer	Univ Calgary - Canadá Calgary Family Therapy Ctr - Canadá University of Calgary - Canadá
4	Wulff, Dan	-	Univ Calgary - Canadá Calgary Family Therapy Ctr - Canadá University of Calgary - Canadá
5	Tomm, Karl	Hombre	Univ Calgary - Canadá Calgary Family Therapy Ctr - Canadá University of Calgary - Canadá
6	Duran, Gabriela	Mujer	Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez - Chile

Ord.

Autor

Género

Institución - País

GAETE-SILVA, JOAQUIN

Hombre

Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez - Chile

Sametband, Ines

Mujer

Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez - Chile

St. George, Sally

Mujer

Univ Calgary - Canadá
Calgary Family Therapy Ctr - Canadá
University of Calgary - Canadá

Wulff, Dan

Univ Calgary - Canadá
Calgary Family Therapy Ctr - Canadá
University of Calgary - Canadá

Tomm, Karl

Hombre

Univ Calgary - Canadá
Calgary Family Therapy Ctr - Canadá
University of Calgary - Canadá

Duran, Gabriela

Mujer

Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez - Chile

Muestra la distribución de instituciones nacionales o extranjeras cuyos autores citan a la publicación consultada.

Citas identificadas: Las citas provienen de documentos incluidos en la base de datos de DATACIENCIA

Citas Identificadas: 40.0 %
Citas No-identificadas: 60.0 %

Fuente
Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico
Conicyt, Fondecyt
Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo CientÃfico y TecnolÃ³gico
Hispanics in Philanthropy
Scoliosis Research Society
Viña del Mar
Sleep Research Society
Centro de Estudios y Atención a las Personas

Fuente

Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico

Conicyt, Fondecyt

Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo CientÃfico y TecnolÃ³gico

Hispanics in Philanthropy

Scoliosis Research Society

Viña del Mar

Sleep Research Society

Centro de Estudios y Atención a las Personas

Agradecimiento
Research As Daily Practice is a framework for co-conducting research by practitioners for therapeutic efficacy (e.g., St. George, Wulff, & Tomm,), using research processes that are aligned with the way in which therapists conduct clinical practice. In this case, we collectively looked at successful family therapy processes, aiming at distinguishing specific conversational practices that, informed by social constructionist theory (e.g., Burr,), we called realizers or ways of conversing that family therapy participants used when successfully making evident to one another their relational preferences. Our emergent taxonomy of conversational practices is not meant to be universalistic—these practices evolved in our particular setting and make no claim of generalizability In the spirit of discovery, we systematically examined transcripts of both constructive and deconstructive TIPs. The transcripts came from a broader research project (Fondecyt #11150198) including nine volunteer families, who sought assistance due to concerns with a child-member who displayed disruptive behaviors, at the Centro de Estudios y Atención a las Personas (CEAP). The CEAP is a counseling center which provides family therapy at low cost for families in Viña del Mar, Chile. Following informed consent, families’ participation in the study entailed the digital recording of their sessions, as well as the session-by-session completion of the session rating scale and outcome rating scale (SRS and ORS, respectively; Bertolino, Bargmann, & Miller,). These questionnaires take about 1–3 minutes for clients to complete, and help identify successful sessions (SRS) as well as successful therapies (ORS), according to clients’ perspectives (Bertolino et al.,). From the corpus of successful family therapy sessions (chosen by using standardized cutting scores from the ORS and SRS), we selected successful sessions in which we identified TIPs that we deemed useful in bringing forth therapeutic change. We formed two teams of observer-judges (Team A and Team B, each one composed of two members). All four observers were either Master's level students or clinicians trained in the theoretical model informing this study (Tomm et al.,), and in identifying TIPs (i.e., segments of therapy talk in which a relational preference is talked-into-being) according to six categories: Constructive TIPs, or bringing forth a HIP. Deconstructive TIPs, or disclosing and disempowering a PIP. Constructive SCIP TIPs, or bringing forth socio-cultural ideas fostering HIPs. Deconstructive SCIP TIPs, or disclosing and disempowering socio-cultural ideas fostering PIPs. Collaborative TIPs, or bringing forth preferences related to the therapeutic process. Progress TIPs, or bringing forth agreements related to therapeutic change or outcome with no specification of content (e.g., “things are getting better”). Observers explored the corpus of successful sessions (a) identifying TIPs according to categories 1–6; and (b) intuitively marking some TIPs as “rich” or meriting further in-depth analysis. We assumed observers’ clinical and theoretical training provided them with tacit knowledge to discriminate how strongly a particular TIP helps to enable therapeutic change, and to identify a potentially “rich” TIP exemplar. To be more specific, both teams pursued inter-subjective agreements according to the following procedure: Each observer in Team A (“A” observers) independently inspected successful sessions/treatments, identifying and classifying TIPs (1–6). Each A observer also marked as “rich” in any instance of a TIP meriting further qualitative analysis. Checking: each “B” observer reviewed and checked each TIP classified as 1–6 by one of the two “A” observers, so that an “agreements” category for each type (1–6) was formed. A total of 500 TIPs were collected in this way. Each B observer also marked as “rich” in any instance of a TIP meriting further analysis. A total of 60 TIPs were categorized as rich, and were selected for a closer discursive-oriented analysis. We explored the TIPs marked as rich by the observers, looking at preference realizers—concrete conversational practices involved in talking-into-being relational preferences in mutually acceptable ways. We explored our data discursively in the sense that we looked for performative and constative aspects of conversation: what participants constructed as preferred by means of language. Similar to what discursive psychologists call the co-construction of mutually acceptable assessments (Wiggins,), we explored how participants co-produced a relational preference as a “stance on an issue” (p. 200). Unlike discursive psychologists, who typically rely on participants’ own categories (Wiggins,), we relied on our observers’ theoretically informed judgment. Within each identified TIP, we assumed there was a relational preference (categories 1–6 above) getting real-ized, or acquiring a fact-like appearance, at least to some degree. Accordingly, we explored each TIP exemplar looking at these “realizers” with our main guiding question: Which conversational practices do participants exhibit when co-producing an RP (i.e., a practice or idea that seemed to be treated as a preferred “reality”)? For instance, we noticed that naming was a realizer: Jointly naming an RP (e.g., T: “How do you call this?” C: “respect”) seemed to increase the reality of such an RP. Our question was thus how participants made RPs more evident for them. Consider a more complex example in which, according to our analysis, participants exhibit a number of inter-connected realizers, involved in co-producing “hitting” as an objectionable (or nonpreferred) practice. As a minimal context, the therapist's (T's) question in line 114 appears right after the client (J) had shared he frequently had a violent reaction when Antonia [his wife] started drinking: 114 T did you ever try to do something to not have the reaction you have 115 when Antonia drinks? 116 J Yes 117 T what did you try? 118 J stop the fight and go away 119 T and how did Antonia respond? 120 J she follows me 121 T she follows you? 122 J ((nods)) 123 T so what happens to you, what happens that makes you want to leave, 124 what is it that happens when you want to leave? 125 J it's so that I don't hit her 126 T that seems important to you not hitting her? 127 J yes ((nods)) 128 T why is it important, José? 129 J because I think I still love her (T: therapist; J: José) (T: therapist; J: José) In the example above, we propose that T and J co-produced “not hitting” (in line 126) as a preferred practice (RP). A first “realizer,” for us, appears in lines 114–116, when T assumes (as a premise in her question in lines 114–115), and J confirms (line 116), that having “the reaction you have when Antonia drinks” amounts to a nonpreferred reality (otherwise, why would he try to do something to not have it). This realizer consists in assuming/confirming an RP. Next, we observe how T requests a description of this RP (line 117), and J provides it accordingly (“stop the fight and go away,” in line 118). We would see this as a second realizer (requesting RP description/providing RP description). In our next section (taxonomy), and as a shorthand, we call these two jointly accomplished realizers, an assuming TIP, and a describing TIP, which can appear with further realizers, strengthening thereby their reifying effect. In this example, we would say that J's account in line 125 (“it's so that I don't hit her”) was somewhat produced by T's prior assumption (in lines 123–124) that J's actions derive from inner intentions (i.e., an assuming positive intentions TIP); that J's subsequent assessment (“yes”; line 127) was invited by T's prior check (“that seems important to you …”; a salience checking TIP); and that J's last account (lines 128–129) was invited within a justifying TIP. We suggest all these realizers work together in reifying “not hitting her” as an RP. After a first round of analysis (analyzing five TIP exemplars), we had about 15 practices, many of them appearing in several exemplars, that would fit into four emerging categories: identifying RP practices (e.g., naming), tracking RP practices (e.g., measuring), transforming RP practices (e.g., planning), and consolidating RP practices (e.g., crystalizing). After a second round of analysis, analyzing 60 TIP exemplars, we decided to include a fifth category, reported in our next section (i.e., preparatory TIPs). It is our hope that researchers and practitioners reading our next section will judge whether or not our distinctions for particular realizers as conversational practices possibly involved in bringing forth relational preferences may be considered apt descriptions to invite the real-ization of relational preferences in their own work.

Agradecimiento

Research As Daily Practice is a framework for co-conducting research by practitioners for therapeutic efficacy (e.g., St. George, Wulff, & Tomm,), using research processes that are aligned with the way in which therapists conduct clinical practice. In this case, we collectively looked at successful family therapy processes, aiming at distinguishing specific conversational practices that, informed by social constructionist theory (e.g., Burr,), we called realizers or ways of conversing that family therapy participants used when successfully making evident to one another their relational preferences. Our emergent taxonomy of conversational practices is not meant to be universalistic—these practices evolved in our particular setting and make no claim of generalizability In the spirit of discovery, we systematically examined transcripts of both constructive and deconstructive TIPs. The transcripts came from a broader research project (Fondecyt #11150198) including nine volunteer families, who sought assistance due to concerns with a child-member who displayed disruptive behaviors, at the Centro de Estudios y Atención a las Personas (CEAP). The CEAP is a counseling center which provides family therapy at low cost for families in Viña del Mar, Chile. Following informed consent, families’ participation in the study entailed the digital recording of their sessions, as well as the session-by-session completion of the session rating scale and outcome rating scale (SRS and ORS, respectively; Bertolino, Bargmann, & Miller,). These questionnaires take about 1–3 minutes for clients to complete, and help identify successful sessions (SRS) as well as successful therapies (ORS), according to clients’ perspectives (Bertolino et al.,). From the corpus of successful family therapy sessions (chosen by using standardized cutting scores from the ORS and SRS), we selected successful sessions in which we identified TIPs that we deemed useful in bringing forth therapeutic change. We formed two teams of observer-judges (Team A and Team B, each one composed of two members). All four observers were either Master's level students or clinicians trained in the theoretical model informing this study (Tomm et al.,), and in identifying TIPs (i.e., segments of therapy talk in which a relational preference is talked-into-being) according to six categories: Constructive TIPs, or bringing forth a HIP. Deconstructive TIPs, or disclosing and disempowering a PIP. Constructive SCIP TIPs, or bringing forth socio-cultural ideas fostering HIPs. Deconstructive SCIP TIPs, or disclosing and disempowering socio-cultural ideas fostering PIPs. Collaborative TIPs, or bringing forth preferences related to the therapeutic process. Progress TIPs, or bringing forth agreements related to therapeutic change or outcome with no specification of content (e.g., “things are getting better”). Observers explored the corpus of successful sessions (a) identifying TIPs according to categories 1–6; and (b) intuitively marking some TIPs as “rich” or meriting further in-depth analysis. We assumed observers’ clinical and theoretical training provided them with tacit knowledge to discriminate how strongly a particular TIP helps to enable therapeutic change, and to identify a potentially “rich” TIP exemplar. To be more specific, both teams pursued inter-subjective agreements according to the following procedure: Each observer in Team A (“A” observers) independently inspected successful sessions/treatments, identifying and classifying TIPs (1–6). Each A observer also marked as “rich” in any instance of a TIP meriting further qualitative analysis. Checking: each “B” observer reviewed and checked each TIP classified as 1–6 by one of the two “A” observers, so that an “agreements” category for each type (1–6) was formed. A total of 500 TIPs were collected in this way. Each B observer also marked as “rich” in any instance of a TIP meriting further analysis. A total of 60 TIPs were categorized as rich, and were selected for a closer discursive-oriented analysis. We explored the TIPs marked as rich by the observers, looking at preference realizers—concrete conversational practices involved in talking-into-being relational preferences in mutually acceptable ways. We explored our data discursively in the sense that we looked for performative and constative aspects of conversation: what participants constructed as preferred by means of language. Similar to what discursive psychologists call the co-construction of mutually acceptable assessments (Wiggins,), we explored how participants co-produced a relational preference as a “stance on an issue” (p. 200). Unlike discursive psychologists, who typically rely on participants’ own categories (Wiggins,), we relied on our observers’ theoretically informed judgment. Within each identified TIP, we assumed there was a relational preference (categories 1–6 above) getting real-ized, or acquiring a fact-like appearance, at least to some degree. Accordingly, we explored each TIP exemplar looking at these “realizers” with our main guiding question: Which conversational practices do participants exhibit when co-producing an RP (i.e., a practice or idea that seemed to be treated as a preferred “reality”)? For instance, we noticed that naming was a realizer: Jointly naming an RP (e.g., T: “How do you call this?” C: “respect”) seemed to increase the reality of such an RP. Our question was thus how participants made RPs more evident for them. Consider a more complex example in which, according to our analysis, participants exhibit a number of inter-connected realizers, involved in co-producing “hitting” as an objectionable (or nonpreferred) practice. As a minimal context, the therapist's (T's) question in line 114 appears right after the client (J) had shared he frequently had a violent reaction when Antonia [his wife] started drinking: 114 T did you ever try to do something to not have the reaction you have 115 when Antonia drinks? 116 J Yes 117 T what did you try? 118 J stop the fight and go away 119 T and how did Antonia respond? 120 J she follows me 121 T she follows you? 122 J ((nods)) 123 T so what happens to you, what happens that makes you want to leave, 124 what is it that happens when you want to leave? 125 J it's so that I don't hit her 126 T that seems important to you not hitting her? 127 J yes ((nods)) 128 T why is it important, José? 129 J because I think I still love her (T: therapist; J: José) (T: therapist; J: José) In the example above, we propose that T and J co-produced “not hitting” (in line 126) as a preferred practice (RP). A first “realizer,” for us, appears in lines 114–116, when T assumes (as a premise in her question in lines 114–115), and J confirms (line 116), that having “the reaction you have when Antonia drinks” amounts to a nonpreferred reality (otherwise, why would he try to do something to not have it). This realizer consists in assuming/confirming an RP. Next, we observe how T requests a description of this RP (line 117), and J provides it accordingly (“stop the fight and go away,” in line 118). We would see this as a second realizer (requesting RP description/providing RP description). In our next section (taxonomy), and as a shorthand, we call these two jointly accomplished realizers, an assuming TIP, and a describing TIP, which can appear with further realizers, strengthening thereby their reifying effect. In this example, we would say that J's account in line 125 (“it's so that I don't hit her”) was somewhat produced by T's prior assumption (in lines 123–124) that J's actions derive from inner intentions (i.e., an assuming positive intentions TIP); that J's subsequent assessment (“yes”; line 127) was invited by T's prior check (“that seems important to you …”; a salience checking TIP); and that J's last account (lines 128–129) was invited within a justifying TIP. We suggest all these realizers work together in reifying “not hitting her” as an RP. After a first round of analysis (analyzing five TIP exemplars), we had about 15 practices, many of them appearing in several exemplars, that would fit into four emerging categories: identifying RP practices (e.g., naming), tracking RP practices (e.g., measuring), transforming RP practices (e.g., planning), and consolidating RP practices (e.g., crystalizing). After a second round of analysis, analyzing 60 TIP exemplars, we decided to include a fifth category, reported in our next section (i.e., preparatory TIPs). It is our hope that researchers and practitioners reading our next section will judge whether or not our distinctions for particular realizers as conversational practices possibly involved in bringing forth relational preferences may be considered apt descriptions to invite the real-ization of relational preferences in their own work.

Abstract

Revista

Métricas Externas

Disciplinas de Investigación

Colaboración Institucional

Autores - Afiliación

Origen de Citas Identificadas

Financiamiento

Agradecimientos

Departamento Gestión de Conocimiento, Monitoreo y Prospección