Solution News Vol2 Issue 3 October 2006

Articles in this issue:

Riding the Underground Railroad…Insoo Kim Berg talks about the origins of SFBT

Brief Therapy with Humour BeingsFrank N. Thomas on humour in Solution Focused work

‘Doing it’ in Child ProtectionGuy Shennan describes Solution Focused approaches that are being used in children’s services

When Solutions Go Bad…Graham Haddow

Solution NewsBulletin of the

United Kingdom Association for Solution Focused Practice

Volume 2 - Issue 3 • October 2006

Also in this issue:

Editorial

Association NewsDetails of what the UKASFP sub-systems have been up to

Book Review

Competition

Distribution News

Solution GnusAll your questions about solution focused working answered

Member NewsInformation on what our members

are doing and plan to do

http://www.solution-news.co.uk

http://www.ukasfp.co.uk

Solution News - Credits:Solution News is freely available at www.solution-news.co.uk

Editor: Ian C Smith

Graphic Designer: Marcia Tavares Smith [email protected]

The opinions presented in Solution News are those of the relevant authors and do not represent the views of the UKASFP. UKASFP membership is only £10 per annum. To join, visit www.ukasfp.co.uk

Contributions and correspondence should be sent to: [email protected].

Copyright to the articles published in Solution News is vested in the relevant author(s) whose permission should be sought before reproducing their article elsewhere. A copy may be made for your personal reference. If you would like to contact any author the editor will forward your request.

Design and layout are copyright © 2006 United Kingdom Association for Solution Focused Practice. All rights reserved. Solution News may be distributed freely in its entirety. Please tell others about us!

2 Solution News • volume 2 issue 3 • October 2006

Another three months has simply flown by, and more and more people are reading,

and now listening to Solution News. Our

latest readers are from as far afield as Cambodia, the Phillipines and Kenya. Welcome, one and all!

This is our first issue featuring articles that have gone through our ‘solution focused peer review’ system, and although you’ll find fewer articles than usual between these pages, I’m sure you’ll agree each one is a really good read. In her piece this month Insoo Kim Berg encourages us to spread the solution focused word far afield and to keep adapting the core ideas of the approach, and that’s what Solution News, for me at least, is all about. So please keep sending us submissions of all types, whether you have big or small ideas, we want to know how you are using, adapting and applying solution focused thinking. So get typing and send something to me at [email protected]. Your planet needs you!

Our other new development is that we are hunting for a features editor to help out with the whole process of producing Solution News. You get paid exactly the same as me (which is nothing, sorry) but the duties aren’t too onerous, and you get the joy of communicating with all sorts of fascinating solution focused workers around the globe. If you’re interested have a look at the advert on page 12.

Happy reading!

Ian C. Smith Editor

mailto:[email protected]


mailto: [email protected]



mailto: [email protected]

Solution News • volume 2 issue 3 • October 2006 3

John: When you first moved to Milwaukee I know that you had an ambition to set up the ‘Mental Research Institute (MRI) of the mid-west’, and I’m curious about when it was that you moved away from doing therapy the way it was done in the MRI and toward a different way that was worth telling people about and that it needed a new name? And how did you come to that conclusion?

When we first started officially under the official name of Brief Family Therapy Centre (BFTC) in 1978 we didn’t have an office, so we started in our living room. We really were aiming to faithfully reproduce what the MRI was doing and so we just got on and did it with what resources we had. So 1978 went by and we finally had enough money put together to move premises, but we were scared of renting an office because they ask you for a three year commitment, and we didn’t know if we were going to survive for three years. But eventually we did move into an office, and then we had a one way mirror, and we started teaching what essentially the MRI model.

Then, I think in about 1980 or 1981, we started noticing that we were doing something very differently, but we didn’t know what it was. And then there were a lot of visitors coming to BFTC because we had a newsletter called the Underground Railroad.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the phrase? The term is from the slave days. It was a secret network where people would help out slaves escaping from house to house. We took the name because what we were doing was so different that we wanted to do it as quietly as possible! We started writing the newsletter, Steve becoming the first and only editor, and people started reading about our work and then started coming to visit us, so we had a lot of visitors coming and going and that also helped us recognise we were doing something quite different from what MRI was doing, because the visitors would keep saying that they thought our way of working was a bit different from the MRI method. So that was the beginning of recognising we were doing something little bit different, although we didn’t know exactly what.

John: At that stage many people might have thought they should try to be more ‘pure’ and thought that they were getting the MRI model wrong, but instead you kept going with the difference?

Yes, absolutely! We wanted to be very pure and we did that for several years, but then we came to recognise that we were not quite doing what MRI model was saying we should do. The first thing that we recognised was different and that became part of

Riding the Underground Railroad…Insoo Kim Berg talks about the origins and future of the solution focused approach

Insoo Kim Berg was one of the founders of the Brief Family Therapy Centre in Milwaukee (www.brief-therapy.org) and one of the originators of Solution Focused Brief Therapy. When she was visiting northeast England this summer John Wheeler caught up with her and got her to talk about how it all got started and where it might go next.

http://www.brief-therapy.org


solution focused therapy was the concept of exceptions, and that was the beginning of the whole evolution of solution focused therapy. We first noticed that we were commenting on solutions instead of problems in 1982, and then after that things started just growing, bursting out. The miracle question first came along in the later part of 1982, and then we added the scaling question and then the other kinds of questions. But I think that I would say that the exception was the first thing that we noticed was different.

Steve’s paper ‘The Death of Resistance’ came out in about 1985 and initially we talked about the ‘double vision’, which was considering the client’s view and our view side by side, so whilst clients saw problems we saw solutions. This was the first idea that led to Steve’s first book ‘Patterns of a Brief Family Therapy’. Even then we were quite sure that solutions were important, and this made it clear to us that the way we were thinking was really different from the MRI.

0

John: I wonder what kept you going with that kind of variation, to see if it represented something much more substantial?

Something but I don’t know what, gave us that clue, that we had an idea that was really interesting but that nobody has ever written about. There is this huge area to talk about called exceptions and times when the problem is not occurring. We became very curious about this and sure enough, in almost every case we found things that client didn’t want to change. We asked that question (“What don’t you want change?”) and we experimented with it, asked people at the end of the first session to pay attention to what it was that they would like to keep in their family, what they would like to fling out, what they would like to keep in their life, what was going on in their lives that they wanted to keep happening. This would be at the end of the first session. MRI had this technique ‘invariant homo suggestion’, and Steve labelled what we

were doing as that. And sure enough the clients would come back with answers to our questions, saying “oh this is what we want to keep happening, this is what went well”.

John: I have a sense that the question itself is based on an assumption that there will be something, otherwise why ask?

Exactly, exactly. We saw some glimpse of that, but didn’t know quite what that was, we just didn’t know what that was, so we thought we would try to find out. And we kept going with asking that and making that assumption, because the clients kept coming back to us, and every time we asked they had something to say!

John: So that reinforced the sensible-ness of the question?

Exactly! I think that’s why we always give credit to the clients, because they encouraged us, their responses encouraged us to keep looking for it and looking, because their responses were so enthusiastic, they would brighten up, they would have more energy and so we thought that maybe we are hitting

something here.

John: When did you get the sense that what you were doing had such significance that you should be telling other practitioners about it?

We wrote a paper in about 1986 where we took the format of the MRI’s problem formation and problem resolution model, which they’d written about in a previous paper. What we did was took the exact same format except that we went in the opposite direction and talked about the ‘solution formation’. That was the first time we spelled it out, that this is what’s going on [at BFTC]. But before that Steve had been writing the death of resistance paper in 1984 and it was at that point we first realised that we don’t even have to think about resistance, that if you follow this model you don’t even need to go there.

Riding the Underground Railroad…

“when we first

started the

BFTC was in our

living room”


John: And once you started pinning your colours to the mast and became very overt about what you were doing, what was the response of the therapeutic community at the time?

We recognised early on that the local therapy community in the Milwaukee area was not really interested. We had more visitors from out of town and out of the country, especially from Europe, attracted by Underground Railroad. For some reason people from the Scandinavian countries became very interested and so we began to have a lot of visitors coming.

And then, we were contacted by Lyman Wynn, from the family therapy field. He is known for writing about schizophrenia and he did a lot of study of schizophrenic families. Anyway, by coincidence Lyman Wynn’s daughter lived in Milwaukee. So he and his wife would come to visit their daughter and they heard about us, although we have no idea how. So every time they came to visit their daughter, they would say “can we come and talk with you?” “Can I come and sit behind the mirror when you are doing work?” “Yes of course!” We were very honoured that someone as well known and respected as Lyman Wynn would want to do that! So then we had lots of conversation with him, and also John Weakland from the MRI continued to visit us. I would say that John Weakland has been our mentor right from the beginning, because we were affiliated with the MRI model. He also recognised we were gradually moving away from them and yet he still got really interested in our work, and we so admired his ability to do that.

John: That’s a tremendous test of a relationship isn’t it? When you part company with somebody…

He still kept visiting us once a year. He came to visit us, sat behind a mirror and we would have him stay with us. Steve and John would drink until midnight, they would talk, talk, talk, talk! Anyway, these kinds of important people and visits gave us a different way of looking at it, because they would say “hmm, I wonder… let’s think about calling it

something else, let’s call it… doesn’t sound like this, somehow this is different.” That stimulated us even more.

Even though we were settled in Milwaukee, we had more out of town visitors than local people and we recognised that we weren’t going to influence anybody in Milwaukee, at least partly because we were right there! Looking back, I think that us being situated in Milwaukee was helpful for us, because big cities like New York or Los Angeles or Boston are places where the therapists tend to follow the old model and that are the seat of the old power structure in the therapy world. But nobody expected anything to come out of Milwaukee, so we were left alone to do what we wanted to do, and nobody disturbed us except the visitors who would come and give us this feedback about what we were doing, which just encouraged us keep going, and which was very helpful.

John: I wonder whether the local therapists weren’t also hearing the rumbling of the underground train!

Well, some students did. We had to earn money, and when we set ourselves up, the approach that’s called ‘managed care’ was just beginning to be used, and the Midwest was one of the hotbeds in the early stages of managed care. So although we’d never come across it before, we agreed to a contract with a managed care company, and they said they would pay us $500 for each case we took on, but that was the limit. If we solved the problem in fewer sessions [than would cost $500] then we could keep the extra money, but if it cost us more then we would have to pay for it. We said “we will do it!”, because we knew that we could solve problems in a very short time. By that time we had become much more confident. And then, we also spread out to the local community, especially to social workers and probation officers, and to community mental health centres, schools and other publicly funded programmes. We spread the word, and we said “send one of your most difficult cases to us, don’t send us your easy cases, we just want the most difficult cases!” And sure enough they just



loved it, because we were willing to take their most difficult cases. We got to be quite good at that, and so we became very good at working with poor people, and with the under-served in the community. But we rarely got to work with the middle class and upper middle class people.

John: I’m curious to ask if you could have, in those early days, looked into a crystal ball through to 2006, seen what’s happening with solution focused therapy today?

No way! Absolutely no way! We never imagined, and that wasn’t our ambition either. We just wanted to be a good clinical centre that served the under-served. I think both Steve and I started as clinicians and once you get the clinical work in your blood you cannot get it out of you! So we just wanted to do a good job and write about it. That was our ambition.

John: So what’s happened is way beyond your original ambition?

Yes, even last summer before Steve died we used to still talk about it quite often, and say “isn’t it amazing! Although we never had this kind of ambition we are so grateful that somehow we started out something that has just spread around the world”. I’m still astounded by this!

John: What tips or thoughts could you share with the experienced people who want to take solution focused working further on?

Well, I think that the model in the way we know it today has taken a long time to be where it’s at right now and I suspect it is going to continue to move on, and we don’t know in what way. People ask me about “what is the miracle picture for you?” I have no idea because we’ve just come so far, way beyond anything we could have possibly imagined, so who knows what’s possible from here on? I don’t know!

I think the first thing is to educate the young people who are coming into the field. I mean that’s the first part, and the second thing is adapting solution focused practice to wherever. You saw at the trainers’ conference how SFBT is spreading throughout the

different fields, and now it really has gone outside of the boundaries of therapy. There is a huge world out there, and people need to hear about solution focused working and to learn how to practice and adapt it to different fields.

People need to hear the spirit part of it, it’s not just a technique, but it’s a willingness to learn from clients, as they are the driving force of this,

and some sense of humility, of modesty. It’s not about us, it’s about the clients and it’s about their life and how to make their life better. I think that’s a very important part of it. I would say that’s what people need to keep remembering.

John: Finally, I just wondered what you would say to people who are new to solution focused working and maybe not even been on training but something whets their appetite? What thoughts you would share with them by way of encouragement?

Well I think that if something about solution focused working has caught some of their attention, then being aware of whatever that was and sticking with that, staying with it, and learning more about how to make it work, is a good way to start. The things that first catch people’s attention seems to be very different for different people, and as a trainer I’m very curious about that. If we knew what that was then maybe we might be able to do a better training!

John: And the ripples continue to go out. Thank you.


“we are so

grateful that

somehow

we started

something that

has just spread

around the

world”

Look out for excerpts of John’s interview with Insoo in future

Solution News Radio broadcasts

http://www.solution-news.co.uk/podcastspage.html


I think the next best thing to solving a problem is finding some humour in it.

Frank A. Clark

As the third session of couples therapy was winding down, I asked the husband and wife a 0-10 scaling question: how confident were they that the changes they had experienced would continue if they decided to end counselling? Both responded with a resounding “ten!”, so I asked:

Therapist: So… what’s next?

Husband: I think we should come back in a month.

Therapist: Why, if I may ask? You are both very confident (about the continuing change)…

Husband: Well… I like you!

Therapist: I like you, too; let’s leave this woman to fend for herself and go get some coffee! (The husband and I stood, play-acting that we were leaving the room).

Wife: Hey! Get back here! I’m not done changing you yet!

Therapist: Who? Me? (Everyone laughs)

Humour is part of most meaningful human relationships,

and the therapeutic context is no exception. Brian Cade (Australia), Harry Norman (UK), Insoo Kim Berg (USA), and Ben Furman (Finland) are all brief therapists whose humour is integral to their work, and with these leaders in the field both promoting and exemplifying humour, a serious look at the role humour plays in the therapy room is warranted.

I have been working with solution focused therapy (SFT) ideas for about twenty of the more than thirty years I have been practicing counselling. During this time, I have experimented with systemic family therapy models, client-centered approaches, and postmodern practices, and the ideas I return to again and again are those most closely identified with SFT. Having worked in churches, university clinics, private practice, and agencies serving the disenfranchised, my affiliation with SFT has served me well. But in every setting, utilising different models under both the best and worst of circumstances, I have found humour to be one of my best allies. Nothing resonates more with people seeking change than appropriate moments of authentic humour. Humour builds hope, bonds relationships, and strengthens resolve as it buoys the spirits of both those seeking help and those assisting the process. In short, it is strong medicine!

Brief Therapy with Humour BeingsFrank N. Thomas looks at the vital role of humour in SF work

Frank Thomas, PhD LMFT teaches counseling at Texas Christian University (USA) and sees clients in his private practice. He has written or edited three books and penned dozens of articles, and he has been described as ‘a frustrated stand-up comic’. Frank is working toward his black belt in aikido, the ‘loving’ martial art, and has passion for family and brief therapies, acoustic music, cybernetics, and photography. Contact Frank at [email protected].

Peer reviewed article



My clients often tell me how valuable humour was to our change process. As an example, during an interview with a former client who adopted the pseudonym ‘Geddes’, he discussed our solution focused therapy experience and found the road we travelled together was paved with humour:

Geddes: The humour in therapy with you was very inviting. As soon as you and I began to chat, we couldn’t help but make observations. And the more observations we made, the more obvious it became that we appreciated each other’s observations about therapy. That was an incredible invitation — an almost instantaneous kind of rapport because I discovered, “Oh! He speaks ‘humour’ — and in a dialect I understand as well!” (Thomas & Macallan, 2001, p. 11)

This SFT experience with Geddes is not unlike most I have formed. Therapy reflects life, and humour is the rubber nose we see in the mirror that sustains sanity and promotes connections.

What is humour?Mindess’ (1971) beautiful statement about humour captures it well:

“Deep, genuine humour — the humour that deserves to be called therapeutic, that can be instrumental in our lives — extends beyond jokes, beyond wit, beyond laughter itself to a peculiar frame of mind. It is an inner condition, a stance, a point of view, or in the largest sense an attitude to life.” (p. 214). Richman (1996, p. 561) said this about the place of humour in counselling: “A humorous attitude is a form of mental play with a serious purpose, to combine self-understanding with the emergence of forbidden or unacknowledged thoughts in a socially acceptable manner.” SFT practitioners have the flexibility to make space for the type of humour articulated by these authors, bringing a stance to the

therapy room that allows the not-yet-said to emerge with little threat and encourages safe investigation.

Humour can take many forms: surprise, exaggeration, absurdity, irony, incongruity, word play, bodily humour (lovely with adolescents!), play, teasing (with caution), reductio ad adsurdum, confusion, and pratfalls are but a few of the forms we experience in counselling relationships. But one should keep in mind that “you do not have to be funny to promote humour” (Young, 1988, p. 34). Humour is but a means, not an end (for perhaps the best overview of humour in therapy to date, see Franzini, 2001).

Why bother?Despite warnings to avoid everything humorous (Kubie, 1971), therapists find themselves working with humorous beings, and working with these life forms necessitates the inclusion of the entire spectrum of our experiences. It is fairly common knowledge that humour is both preventive and interventive. It promotes the release of endorphins, which are natural painkillers, and it stimulates the immune system, reduces stress, and has a positive impact on our cardiovascular systems (Friedler, 2002; McGhee, 2006). In addition, humour increases personal liking and is associated with relational closeness (Baxter, 1990). Even Freud (1938) himself told jokes from time to time. But general benefits of humour or even endorsement from experts (such as Freud) may not be enough to nudge the practitioner toward accepting its value or making use of humour in session because of the possibilities for misuse.

One can be certain that errors are made and humour is misused, but some significant research conclusions support the inclusion of humour as therapists toil to create a collaborative and effective environment for change. First, Bennett’s (1996) research sampled both therapists’ and clients’ experiences of humour in the therapy

Brief Therapy with Humour Beings by Frank N. Thomas


context with some fascinating results. His qualitative, interview-centred research project led to themes that not only supported the place of humour in counselling but required it. All of the therapists Bennett interviewed said they purposefully utilised humour. Interestingly (but not surprisingly), none of them had any training in this area during or after their counselling education. These therapists found that the introduction of humour were “helpful to change clients’ moods or perceptions, to relieve stress and tension, (and) to improve the therapeutic relationship” (p. 3401). Client informants said that humour in therapy was a positive contribution and that therapy lacking humour was a negative experience. Other themes from these client interviews: (1) humour provided tension relief, (2) it encouraged clients to continue the therapeutic process, (3) humour positively contributed to the therapeutic relationship, and (4) it influenced client perceptions.

Several other research publications are worth nothing. Kush’s (1997) survey of therapy clients found that humour in therapy was related to more favourable counsellor evaluations of outcome. Gale and Newfield (1992) studied video of a case conducted by Bill O’Hanlon. Using conversational analysis (CA), the researchers found that O’Hanlon used humour to change the subject from a ‘problematic theme’ to one the therapist wanted to pursue (p. 161). O’Hanlon, a solution-oriented therapist, introduced humour to intentionally disrupt the flow and direction the clients were taking, guiding the session in a more solution-oriented direction. Finally, Stevanovic and Rupert (2004) found that one’s sense of humour was a top characteristic tied to sustaining one’s viability as a psychotherapist and remaining in the profession.

In summary: clients seem to need humour to be a part of the therapy process; clients like counsellors who allow and/or encourage it; therapists use humour to maintain a SF

direction and structure in the session; and therapists need it to continue to perform at a peak level. Research support abounds; humour is a necessary part of the practice of therapy.

When? How?Good humour is not forced. Most authors and researchers speak of appropriate therapeutic humour as that which arises in the occasion, a relationship event that makes sense to all parties. So, rather than wearing a rubber nose or placing whoopee cushions on clients’ chairs, SF practitioners should open up space to a wide range of human emotions and experiences and feel free to respond to humorous contextual exchanges with laughter. A solution orientation directs the therapist to collaborate, so one laughs

with, not at, clients. One follows their lead. If and when the relationship allows it, humour will be an appropriate response and may even be introduced by the solution focused therapist.

Contextual clues can create an atmosphere of informed consent regarding humour. One may decorate a counselling setting in a way that says,

“Humour Is Allowed Here.” A laughing Zen monk statue, a Gary Larson cartoon-a-day calendar, or toys scattered about the room make statements about the range of expression that is permitted. But one should first establish an accepting, positive atmosphere, because with humour, timing is everything. One may use it to facilitate belonging and to communicate ideas that may be difficult to introduce, avoiding sarcasm, mockery, and what has been called the ‘bitter aftertaste’ humour, as these styles of humour rarely build relationships and cooperation. When introducing humour, a therapist should inform the client in the first session how she often works, keeping in mind that indirect communication is more subject to misinterpretation. And most of all, the SF practitioner should follow the mandate to ‘lead from one step behind’.


“significant

research

conclusions

support the

inclusion of

humour in

therapy”


Observing clients’ responses regarding the appropriateness and value of humour in the counselling context is feedback worth attending to.

Brief Clinical ExamplesHere are a couple of examples of appropriate humour that the clients both welcomed and utilized in their SF change process.

Roman and his Mum

Roman (age six, whose seventh birthday was a few weeks away) was struggling with ‘zipping his lip’ (remaining silent) in school, which constantly got him in trouble. When I asked about examples of ‘good lip-zippers’, he told me that his classmate Sally (age five) was really good at being quiet as the group began naptime. After Roman agreed that he sometimes followed Sally’s lead at those times, I said:

FNT: Now, Roman, if you were 7, this would be easy...but since you’re only 6...

Roman: (interrupting) I’ll be seven in 20 days! I’m almost 7!

FNT: Well, you’re only 6 or is it 5? I can’t remember...

Roman: (excitedly) I’m 6, almost 7 — I’m not 5!

His success was strengthened by his insistence that being ‘6’ or ‘7’ made it easier to follow his classmate’s example. In subsequent sessions, Roman consistently referred to ‘being seven’ as key to his success in lip-zipping.

The Andersons

Bob and Linda were separated and rarely agreed with one another on anything. They were able to come together to help their suicidal daughter, Susan, at a particularly opportune time in the therapy. Early in therapy, when I proposed the idea that Susan

might be either the one who kept the two parents communicating or the family member who continually stirred the marital conflict, Bob said, “I think she keeps us talking”, to which Linda immediately responded, “Well, I think she keeps us apart”. At that point in the process, they took advantage of every opportunity to disagree.

When the couple began to co-operate in their parenting in spite of different residences and opinions, their conflict decreased and their commitment to their marriage became prominent:

Therapist: What’s been going well for you two?

Bob: We’ve been getting along really good the past… few… (five-second pause)… days.

Therapist: The past few… (looking at his watch)… what time is it, anyway?

The couple and therapist burst into laughter, which they followed with multiple examples of ‘really good’, as if to prove to the therapist that Bob’s hesitancy was not for lack of positive examples.

Some CautionsCertainly there are times when humour is inappropriate. Here are a few guiding ideas about when not to use humour: • when it is too soon in the therapeutic

relationship • when the problem is too serious (i.e.,

paranoia, recent trauma, major life transitions, terminal illness, early grief)

• when you don’t like the client(s) • when it is forced • in life-threatening situations • when your frames of reference are

too different • if it denigrates the client • when it is used to distance yourself

from or avoid others • when it could be misconstrued as

trivializing of the client



• when it is aggressive • when it serves the therapist’s needs

(Thomas, 2002a, 2002b).

Practicing HumourThe most common mistake inexperienced therapists make is using humour too frequently. One should seek supervisory or colleague feedback, never hiding one’s attempts at humour. One way to learn styles of humour is to observe other therapists’ use of humour around relationship building, context development, and timing. A place to easily interject humour is in the opening moments of the counselling session (talking about clinic parking or the weather), starting with innocuous humour such as puns and word plays. A beginning therapist should not use self-deprecating humour too soon. If one is inexperienced, people may be persuaded to believe the therapist when he belittles his therapeutic skills! One should also be careful not to join in family humour without reflective examination, as it is easy to join in destructive sarcasm or scapegoating (for example) without intending to. When integrating humour, one should learn to control one’s laughter and not make fun of a client’s potentially embarrassing moments (such as faux pas, mispronunciations, and so on). Finally, one should avoid any type of put-down and criticism and take special care when writing anything humorous (such as narrative letter writing or journaling with clients).

This serious business of humour may seem ridiculous to some, but others have embraced its usefulness and humanity. An SF practitioner takes her lead from the clients, and the place of humour in both the relationship and the context is no exception (pardon the pun). Once a person grasps the advantages of humour in the therapy context, time, practice, and paying close attention to client responses will hone the skill and increase the benefits. It’s not about perfection — it’s about community in one’s imperfection. And humour builds community!

ReferencesBaxter, L. (1990, November). Intimate play in friendships and romantic Relationships. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Bennett, C. E. (1996). An Investigation of Clients’ Perception of Humor and Its Use in Therapy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman’s University, US.

Franzini, L. R. (2001). Humor in therapy: The case for training therapists in its uses and risks, The Journal of General Psychology, 128 (2), 170-193.

Freud, S. (1938). Wit and its relation to the unconscious. In A. A. Brill (Ed), The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud (pp. 633-803). New York, US: Modern Library.

Friedler, R. (2002). The humorous gaze: Psychotherapy, the Internet, and daily life, International Journal of Psychotherapy, 7 (2), 159-164.

Gale, J., & Newfield, N. (1992). A conversation analysis of a solution-focused therapy session. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 18 (2), 153-165.

Kush, J. C. (1997). Relationship between humor appreciation and counselor self-perceptions, Counseling and Values, 42 (1), 22-29.

McGhee, P. E. (2006). Humor and health. Accessed August 18, 2006 from http://www.holisticonline.com/Humor_Therapy/humor_mcghee_article.htm

Mindess, H. (1971). Laughter and Liberation. Los Angeles, US: Nash.

Richman, J. (1996). Points of correspondence between humor and psychotherapy, Psychotherapy, 33 (4), 560 566.

Stevanovic, P., & Rupert, P. A. (2004). Career-sustaining behaviors, satisfactions, and stresses of professional psychologists, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, and Training, 41 (3), 301-309.

Thomas, F. N. & Macallan, G. (Fall, 2001). Extraordinary moments: The use of humor in therapy, CONTEXT: The Magazine for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice, 39, 11-13.

Thomas, F. N. (2002a, Spring). Humor in psychotherapy: The sixth sense. RATKES: Journal of the Finnish Association for the Advancement of Solution and Resource Oriented Therapy and Methods, 2, 15-19.



Solution News is seeking a features editor!

Your job will be to organise, chase down and editor the non-article aspects of Solution News. You will need to be a UKASFP member, and will be paid ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (the same as the editor) other than a resounding feeling of participation, the knowledge of a job well done, and the chance to interact with some fairly high profile SFers and communicate with solutioneers around the world. You will be given all the support you need by the existing Solution News team. Interested? Want to know more? See our job description at www.solution-news.co.uk/featureeditor.htm and contact [email protected] for an informal chat.

Thomas, F. N. (2002b). Humor in therapy: The sixth sense. In S. St. George & D. Wulff (Eds.), The evolving face of family therapy: Looking at the therapist — Proceedings of the Kentucky Association for Marriage and Family Therapy 2001 Conference (pp. 94-101). Louisville, KY: University of Louisville.

Young, F. D. (1988). Three kinds of strategic humor: How to use and cultivate them, Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 7 (2), 21-34.

Get more solution news!

Solution News Radio is a new internet broadcast from the creators of Solution News.

Our ten-minute shows feature interviews, discussion,

coverage of live events and spoken-word versions of articles.

Subscribe now FOR FREE through itunes (if you don’t have itunes already you can get it for free at www.apple.com/itunes/download) just click

podcasts>podcast directory and search using the phrase ‘Solution News Radio’.

OR you can download individual episodes at www.solution-news.co.uk

Happy listening!


Your e-journal

needs YOU!

http://www.solution-news.co.uk/podcastspage.html

http://www.solution-news.co.uk/featureeditor.htm


That there general committee have met up twice already since the June conference.

Paul Hanton (commitee member) has been gathering information on formal SF courses run in the UK. This will include any relevant qualifications or credits, contact details and course content. The details are awaiting approval from those running the courses and will be posted on the UKASFP website (www.ukasfp.co.uk) in the near future. If you know of any courses that should be included, please contact Paul directly at: [email protected]. The committee has also been sharing ideas with counterparts in Finland, and has been looking at the best ways of consulting with government agencies such as the department of health and national institute for mental health. We have also been looking at ways we can expand UKASFP membership.

✎

The 2007 UKASFP Conference will be held on Saturday 16th June 2007 at Keele University in North Staffordshire (www.keele.ac.uk).

The theme is ‘Next Steps’. As you might expect we aim to do something different.

Our best hopes are that; We will not be having a key-note speaker but will have a panel of 4 or 5 people who represent the breadth of SF practice in the United Kingdom (education, coaching, social work, independent practice etc.). Each will briefly give their thoughts on the conference theme and then take part in a hosted conversation with delegates in the main hall. Practitioners from around the UK will also be hosting smaller conversations about their area of interest. A ‘meet and greet’ area will be available for people to do just that throughout Friday afternoon and Saturday. Friday will see an informal pre-conference get together on the campus. On and off campus accommodation will be available. The AGM will be made efficient by the use of electronic and mail communication prior to the event.

We are now happy to hear from anyone who would like to volunteer to host a conversation about their field or take part in the full conference conversation.Details may change as we get closer to the date and we are always keen to hear your ideas.

✎

Considering buying in some SF training?

Last year the UKASFP general committee became aware of some excellent training taking place, but sadly also some downright shabby training, masquerading as SF training. Whilst we are not in a position to endorse trainers on our website, we have decided that there are a number of questions that you, as a training purchaser, can ask prospective trainers, that will help ensure good quality and value for money.

Please visit the UKASFP website page relevant to this for more details:

http://www.ukasfp.co.uk/directory/training-info.cfm

ASSOCIATION NEWSA round-up of the work of the UKASFP sub-systems



http://www.keele.ac.uk

http://www.ukasfp.co.uk/directory/training-info.cfm


BOOK REVIEWM. McKergow & J. Clarke (Eds),(2005). Positive Approaches to Change: Applications of Solutions Focus and Appreciative Inquiry at Work (Solutions Focus at Work) London: Solution Books. Paperback: 192 pages.Review by Barry White

This book represents the “first collection of writing on application of solution focus in organisational and management work” and claims to offer a simple and clear way of working that will minimise confusion in working both individually and with organisations.

It begins with a comment that most approaches in the past have focused on a ‘negative’ approach that sees problems that need to be ‘fixed’ and the popular remedies that have arisen as a result. Often those approaches have given rise to a whole host of remedies where the knowledge lies with specialists and not the organisation.

Positive approaches on the other hand have a different positive focus that seem to locate the strength and ability within the individual/organisation — so that the skill needed by an external person becomes much more that of strength discovery and enabling.

Three such approaches are introduced by McKergow — solution focus, appreciative inquiry and positive psychology — that have this focus. Certainly the first two approaches are the basis of much of what is contained within the book so this is a useful summary in order to be able to understand what follows.

I found the collection of articles within the book good examples of the ways in which organisations can adapt and change in such a positive and refreshing way compared to many more traditional approaches — techniques that can be used both for team building and team appraisal.

As with any collection of articles there is both similarity and diversity — but in this case it is the diversity that is the hallmark of the book and what is contained within it. It is a most useful book that will help any company to make changes to the way they do things — and my only regret that the book was not available during my time as managing director of my own company!

I would also describe the book as fresh and innovative and contains approaches that are perhaps becoming more familiar — the article on solution focused reflecting teams for example. That may be a mark of the quality of the articles contained in the book as I feel sure that as the techniques become more widely known so will this collection all in one book become more valuable for organisations and individuals to have.

Would I buy the book? Certainly — I already have. I work in a private setting and am engaged in management consultations around such issues and have no hesitation in recommending the book to those who I speak to.

Certainly if you work organisationally or want to make an impact on the organisation you work in it is worth investing what is a reasonable sum for something that contains so much value. Diverse approaches with positive techniques that work are well worth knowing about — a book I would highly recommend.

REVIEWING BOOKSLet us know what you think of a book... Solution News has a number of books available for members to review. If you would like to review one of the books below, or another book, please contact [email protected].

Books currently available:

• Team Coaching with the Solution Circle by Daniel Meier

• Solution Focused Stress Counselling by Bill O’Connell

We are always looking for more books to review. If you would like to make a book available for review, please get in touch!



About ten years ago, in my early days of learning how to do solution focused brief therapy (SFBT), my constant refrain seemed to be, “yes, but how do you do it in child protection?” (priding myself that I was becoming a little more advanced when my question became “yes, and…”). At this time I was a social worker, employed by a Social Services department and working in a children and families reception team. These teams are now usually called ‘Duty and Assessment’ — which seems unfortunate to me as I had always thought of it as being a ‘Duty and Assessment and Change’ team. On some occasions we became involved with families because parents had come to us hoping that we might help them change things in some way. Completing a four-day course in solution focused brief therapy helped me to avoid getting bogged down in unnecessary assessment in these cases, and gave me a model with which we could get straight on with the business of change.

However, work which was initiated by parents or carers approaching the department, and in which we could work

solely to their (and their children’s) agendas, made up only a part of our caseload. The other part, probably the main part (or maybe it just felt that way) originated in ‘third party’ referrals, where concerns about a child’s welfare had been reported. This is what I was referring to when I asked about how you did it in child protection. And by ‘child protection’ here I mean the ‘front-line’ aspects of the job: knocking on a door to let a parent know that we had been informed that their child was being neglected; applying to magistrates to remove children

from their parents’ care; writing reports for child protection conferences; visiting children who are on the Child Protection Register, and so on. This is what John Weakland described as the ‘real world’ of statutory social work with families. In an ‘ideal world’ according to Weakland, a person with a

significant problem seeks out a counsellor and says “I have a problem which I am unable to resolve on my own, so I have come to ask for your help”. This person is then compliant with requests for information and suggestions about changes, and the worker has plenty of time

‘Doing it’ in Child ProtectionGuy Shennan describes how SF approaches have been used in this most challenging of arenas

“Would you

rather sit here

and talk about

cases that have

gone wrong or

talk about cases

that have been

turned around

when no one

thought they

would be?”

Guy has worked at BRIEF since 2004 (www.brieftherapy.org.uk). Prior to that he was a social worker, working in both the statutory and voluntary sectors, before setting up his own solution focused practice and training consultancy in the East Midlands. Guy runs training courses, including co-leading BRIEF’s one-year diploma, sees clients, and provides consultation and supervision. He can be contacted at guyshennan@ brieftherapy.org.uk.

Peer reviewed article

http://www.brieftherapy.org.uk



available to spend with them. In the real world the situation seems to be somewhat different, “in fact almost opposite in every major respect” (Weakland and Jordan, 1992). Too right. And much harder.

Yet still I asked about how you do it in child protection. It felt as if the solution focused approach must have something to offer this ‘real world’, a world in which we were exhorted to work ‘in partnership’ with families, without ever being given many clues about how to do so. Answers to my question were slow to emerge, and sometimes seemed to amount to not much more than ensuring that assessments considered strengths as well as difficulties, which any self-respecting social worker would argue that they did already. Then, in the autumn of 1997, I came across an article by a brief therapist and a child protection social worker from Western Australia, called ‘Aspiring to Partnership’. As I read Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards’ account of their Signs of Safety model of child protection practice, I felt a growing sense of excitement. They seemed to have built a model which incorporated the use of solution focused skills (the ‘practice elements’) with an assessment and planning process which looked towards future safety for children by building on existing safety, while at the same time keeping in full view all the concerns surrounding those children.

However exciting it is to read an account of a new practice model, this could not suffice as an answer on its own. Social workers are a pragmatic bunch and need to see that new ideas can be translated into practice. Further encouragement came with the book that followed the article (Turnell and Edwards, 1999), as it was littered with practice examples. Still, these were from Western Australia, and UK practitioners and managers would need convincing that the approach could be utilised in the UK.

Thankfully, in a number of children’s Social Care departments around the country, there are small groups of pioneering workers whose models of practice are beginning to convince. Blazing the trail have been Gateshead (Hogg

and Wheeler, 2004) and West Berkshire, who have been joined more recently by the London borough of Haringey. It is the ongoing development of a pilot project in Haringey which is the main subject of this article.

The workers in Haringey primarily responsible for this pilot project are Dawn Green, one of their child protection advisors, and Kathy Nuza, until recently a children’s reviewing officer there. They are clear about the initial inspiration behind the pilot, a two-day presentation by Andrew Turnell, organised by BRIEF, which they attended in March 2005. What was it that inspired them? In Dawn’s words:

Andrew made it seem doable. The model was straightforward and simple. His assertion that you could do it after a two-day training course was very appealing. I also liked the fact that the model was practice-led, in that it was tested out during its development by social workers in Western Australia and if they could not use an aspect of the model it was simply dropped. Andrew also talked about the bigger picture and the succession of child abuse inquiries since the 1970’s. He asked, “Would you rather sit here and talk about cases that have gone wrong or talk about cases that have been turned around when no one thought they would be?” This made sense to me. His observations about social work losing its way reminded me of why I had gone into social work and my desire to make a difference. I thought, “Why don’t we do this in Haringey?”

The solution focused model has sneaked itself in to all sorts of places, and Dawn and Kathy soon found that they had some allies who would help in bringing solution focused and Signs of Safety work into front-line child protection practice in Haringey. It turned out that Dawn’s manager already knew about solution focused brief therapy, as did the senior manager of one of the child protection teams. The assistant director did not know about it but his enthusiastic response when

‘Doing it’ in Child Protection by Guy Shennan


they went to him: “this is the sort of thing that we should be doing, the sort of thing that can make a difference to children’s lives”, gave Dawn and Kathy the confidence to present a business plan to the senior managers’ group, outlining their ideas for a pilot project. The plan was duly agreed and the pilot could get underway.

The project involves one of Haringey’s long-term child protection teams and part of a referral and assessment team. These teams received a two-day training course in solution focused skills, followed just over a month later by a day concentrating on the Signs of Safety model. The teams’ managers attended these days, as well as a two-day solution focused supervision and consultation course. After this training had been provided the pilot was launched in March 2006. The teams involved (made up of social workers and social work assistants and trainees) were to attempt to utilise solution focused skills and the Signs of Safety model in their casework. They are receiving monthly consultation sessions from myself, and also benefited from attending BRIEF’s Solutions with Children and Adolescents conference in May 2006, not least because of the inspiring presentation by Viv Hogg, Sharon Elliott and Kath Seed about their work along similar lines in Gateshead.

Providing the consultation to the team is proving to be an interesting and stimulating experience. We meet once a fortnight for an hour and we usually find space to hear examples of how workers are using the approach. Given the hurly-burly of a statutory children’s worker’s daily round, it has inevitably not proved to be easy to start using solution focused ideas, and we are learning to take it slowly and think small in terms of implementation. Because of this I am interested in hearing about anything, from a home visit which was wholly solution focused to the use of one solution focused question which seemed

to make a difference. From the many encouraging examples of innovative uses of the approach, the following two come from our most recent consultation session.

NB All cases discussed here have been anonymised: names and details of the clients have been altered to prevent families from being identified. Conversely, I am following Andrew Turnell’s practice of naming all of the social workers involved with their permission. In common with their clients, the voices of front-line child protection workers tend to go unheard, and workers are usually only named when something has gone wrong. The intention here is to give credit where it is due.

Wilhma Sik provided a good example of how she had organised her work with a family around a future focus from the outset. She became the social worker for a family where John, the father of Amy, aged two, had seriously assaulted Jane, her mother. When the police arrived, John used Amy to shield himself from them and he fell, injuring Amy in the process. He ended up serving a prison sentence and, on coming out of prison, Jane obtained an injunction. Since then they have

resumed their relationship and John has started to have contact with Amy again.

When Wilhma first visited Jane, she tried to start with ‘problem-free talk’, to indicate her interest in the family as something more than a place where abuse had taken place. Jane did not engage with this, and instead proceeded to give her own account of children’s services involvement to date and the reasons for it. Rather than discussing the history with her, Wilhma responded by

moving the conversation into the future, by asking Jane what she wanted: what were her best hopes with regards to Children’s Services being involved? Jane replied by saying that she wanted them out of her life, “so that I can get on with my life”. It was a natural progression for Wilhma to then enquire about what needed to be done for


“in supervision

I am interested

in hearing

about anything,

from a home

visit which was

wholly solution

focused to the

use of just one

solution focused

question”


Amy’s name to be removed from the register. She did this by asking “what do you think you can do, and we can do, so that Amy’s name can be taken off the register?”

This example shows how the best hopes question, developed in the world of therapy, can be brought into an encounter between statutory worker and parent in a child protection context. Whereas Jane immediately began talking about the concerns, about what was not wanted, Wilhma indicated her interest in a different future, in what was wanted, which opened up possibilities for a more constructive conversation. Not only that, her interest in Jane’s hopes indicated Wilhma’s desire to work in partnership, which was further underlined when Wilhma asked what each of them could do towards Amy’s name coming off the register.

Another example of the benefits of a conversational shift to the future arose in Dorota Rospierska’s work with a family where an eight-month-old child had been removed from his parents’ care. One of Dorota’s tasks was to supervise the parents’ contact with their son. When she telephoned to introduce herself and to arrange the first of these sessions, Dorota could hear the parents’ rage: “we’ll sue children’s services… the social worker is lying…”, and was understandably apprehensive about how the contact would go.

As it turned out, the session did become chaotic, and Dorota, searching for a way forward, took out the Signs of Safety form — ‘something tangible!’ — saying something like: “There is your side and there is children’s services’ side. Children’s services would like to see some changes. Can I ask some questions that may help us to think about what you can do from your side?” As they talked, Dorota noted down the parents’ ideas on the form: “going to the GP; having a rest, having a holiday (having had none for seven years), which hopefully would have the effect of getting on better with each other, and being more relaxed with our child”.

Inviting the parents to talk about preferred futures, rather than complaints about the present and recent past, both helped to make the session more manageable and created more potential for change.

John Jaspers had earlier shared with the team his use of the Signs of Safety approach in ‘core groups’, the regular meetings of professionals involved with a family which have become such a feature of child protection work, and whose chairing can prove a difficult task for the social worker. John prepared core group members in advance (which includes the parents) by sending a blank copy of the Signs of Safety form, then in the core group meeting they used it to consider all the current factors indicating danger/harm to the child, and those which are ‘signs of safety’, by listing them under the two columns on either side. They then came to a view about where the balance lies between the two, by scaling the safety of the child (0=certainty of future abuse/neglect; 10=name can come off the register). This led to a written agreement being negotiated with the parent(s), about what one point up the scale would look like. Gillie Christou, the team manager, has also used the approach in core groups, and describes as some of the benefits, especially of using the scale; that:

• It focuses discussion

• It elicits views on the child protection issues

• It is a good platform for making action plans from.

Even more challenging is using the approach in child protection conferences, and a fitting place to end this article is with one of the originators of the Haringey pilot. Dawn Green has found solution focused ideas useful to her role as conference chair in a number of ways. She has developed a format for the pre-meeting with parents — what’s been going well; best hopes from the conference; safety scale — which has proved to be an efficient way of engaging



with the parents and focusing on their wishes and views. In the conference itself, Dawn has found questions arising from a safety scale particularly useful. Dawn asks each professional to scale the safety of the child (10 being most safe), and follows up by asking what puts their rating at that point and not lower. This has proved to be the most helpful way of ensuring that strengths and signs of safety are discussed as well as concerns. Questions about what they need to see for movement up the scale then lead to a process which “forces professionals to think concretely about their expectations of a family”. The Signs of Safety form is useful to Dawn in recording and summarising the conference, and in formulating the child protection plan.

The pilot is ongoing and, being work-in-progress, it is impossible to say where it will eventually lead. To those who are interested in the spread of solution focused ideas beyond the therapy room, it is fascinating to see their use in the different aspects of child protection practice, including casework, supervision, and chairing case conferences. To those looking for constructive ways of carrying out the child protection task, I think that there is much to be learned from the pioneering work of Haringey and elsewhere.

Thanks to all at Haringey Children & Young People’s Service involved in the pilot, Dawn Green, Gillie Christou and the Tottenham Child Protection Team in particular. For further information, contact [email protected] and/or [email protected]

For further information on the Signs of Safety model, go to www.signsofsafety.net

ReferencesHogg, Viv and Wheeler, John (2004). Miracles R Them: solution-focused practice in a social services duty team, Practice, 16, 299-314.

Turnell, Andrew and Edwards, Steve (1997). Aspiring to Partnership: The signs of safety approach to child protection casework, Child Abuse Review, 6, 179 - 190.

Turnell, Andrew and Edwards, Steve (1999). Signs of Safety: A solution and safety oriented approach to child protection casework, New York, Norton.

Weakland, John and Jordan, Lyn (1992). Working briefly with reluctant clients, child protective services as an example, Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 231-251.


COMPETITION NEWSThe UKASFP is always trying to find new ways to increase its membership so that it can more truly represent SF practitioners in the UK and support them in their work. We are looking for ideas that are practical and will allow us to support SF workers in useful ways. Write us with your ideas for how we can increase UKASFP membership. Send your suggestions to [email protected].

The best suggestion will win a copy of ‘The Handbook of Solution Focused Therapy’ edited by O’Connell and Palmer. We will announce the winner in a future issue. Editor’s decision is final.



Therapist to Manager… “That sounds tough”

Manager… “Yes, it was… but Macedonia are no mugs you know”

Therapist “So imagine they were mugs… what might the score have been?”

Manager “That wasn’t a good question”

Therapist “Oh sorry…”

Manager “They’re an up-and-coming football nation with some players who play for their shirt, play for their country”

Therapist “They’ll be Macedonians then?”

Manager “Yes. Probably”

Therapist “So… how will you know that us meeting today has been helpful?”

Manager “I don’t know”

Therapist “Ok… Imagine you did know?”


Manager “I thought I came here for you to help me?”

Therapist “Wait… you’ve just broken the code of conversation… I should have answered next…………………… but that aside… imagine you left here today, went home, went to bed, sleep, …… and a miracle happened……… and all the Macedonian problems disappeared…… WOW!… and you managed to beat France 1 - 0 ??!!!!”

Manager “But they’re such a good team… who could manage that, I don’t know”

Therapist “Imagine you did”


Therapist “But weren’t you in the World Cup finals?”

Manager “That wasn’t a good question”

Therapist “I’m sorry, things have been tough haven’t they”

Manager “Yes, thanks for listening”

Therapist “That’s why I’m here.”

When Solutions Go Bad...Graham Haddow illustrates when NOT to adopt a solution focused stance, and along the way proves the old adage that football is more important than any mere matter of life or death!


DISTRIBUTION NEWSSolution News is still spreading the SF word around the globe. As at 15.10.2006:

The total number of computers that had downloaded a copy of Solution News June 2006 issue was 1,164

The total number of first time visitors to the Solution News web-site since launch was 3023

The total number of countries Solution News had been downloaded from was 63

We also know that many of our readers get given Solution News in hard copy form by colleagues who have downloaded it, and these (obviously) aren’t included in the above figures

Countries Where Solution News Is Read, In Red!

World map created by World66 (visit www.world66.com)

Download past (and present, and future) issues of Solution News (and coming soon, podcast versions) at www.solution-news.co.uk

UKASFP web-site and national email discussion group is at www.ukasfp.co.uk

European Brief Therapy Association web site is at www.ebta.nu

The SFT-L international discussion list is at http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=SFT-L&H=LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

SOLUTIONS-L is an international discussion list for those using a solution focused approach with organisations. It’s at: http://www.solworld.org/index.cfm?id=5

The Brief Family Therapy Center (Milwaukee, US) website is at www.brief-therapy.org

USEFUL WEB-LINKS

http://www.world66.com



http://www.ebta.nu

http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=SFT-L&H=LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

http://www.solworld.org/index.cfm?id=5

http://www.brief-therapy.org


The burly beasts have been giving some weighty issues serious consideration recently, such as where on the Savannah is sunniest, how many beasts make a herd, and which water holes are best to whet their whistles at. And then we poked them and told them to stop day-dreaming and get on with answering you solution focused questions! Here’s how they grumpily responded:

Everyone loves those SOLUTION GNUS!

“Dear Gnus, my employer has said that I must make sure that I get ‘sufficient’ supervision for my solution focused therapy work. How much supervision do you think is enough? Is there a ratio to follow or something?”

Evan George gnu. He said:

I am impressed by just how seriously your employer takes the service that you offer, how much she or he cares about you and ensuring that you are properly supported and how much your employer trusts you to determine what sufficient may be.

As far as I know no-one in the world of Solution Focused Brief Therapy has set out to answer the question “how much supervision should I have?” That tends to happen when therapies get accredited and rules and regulations start to be developed. My accreditation as a Systemic Psychotherapist through UKCP requires 18 hours of supervision per year in the first three years post-qualification and then 12 hours per year subsequently. (Many might take the view that the opposite way round would be more appropriate.) BACP seems to require a similar 18 hours or 1.5 hours per month.

However since Solution Focused Brief Therapy is not an accredited model the question of ‘how much’ is likely to be a question for you to answer. And the answer to ‘how much’ might also depend on the form of supervision that you go for, peer-supervision, group-supervision or a more traditional style. Lots of questions and not so many answers I am afraid.

So… imagine that you start supervision and the supervision goes for you as well as you could hope. How will you know in a year’s time that the supervision has been of use to you? What else and what else might tell you? And how will the service-users that you work with know? And your manager? What might you hope to have noticed about your work during the course of the year that will have pleased you? What would you hope to bring to the supervisory process that would warm the heart of any supervisor? If your supervisor were to learn something from supervising you what might that be? And as you look back at the end of 2007 how many times will you remember meeting with your supervisor?

Good luck.


“Dear Gnus, I work on a busy inpatient environment, and rarely get to sit down to do formal ‘therapy’ with my clients. In fact, the only time I get to talk to them for any significant period of time is when there is a crisis (such as after a violent incident or self-harm). Do you think it can be appropriate to use solution focused talk in such a crisis, and what might it be useful to talk about?”

Paul Hanton gnu. He replied:

Yes, of course you can use solution focused talk in these settings. In times of crisis, Insoo Kim Berg’s words come to mind: “You must have a good reason for doing that”, which to me is a good opener to establish other ways in which the person might move forward, other than the crisis action(s).

Coping questions (often overlooked in SFBT) are useful: “How did you manage up to this point?”, “What has helped you cope before?”, “What would help you cope with this situation?”.

Exception (to the current situation) finding questions can be helpful, as can scaling questions, particularly when establishing what things might look like when the crisis starts to diminish.

In an inpatient setting (psychiatry), generally people are there for their own or others’ safety. Often the stay is involuntary, so it can be useful to establish what will be happening that will tell the person we are seeing, (as well as others such as the doctors, staff, family etc) that things are safer, and how people will know that the immediate crisis/threat is over?

Everybody has a preferred future. Whether it is to be off the ward, or something less immediate, it is the job of the solution focused worker to find out what that preferred future is, and what are the steps that will happen on the way to it (although obviously within boundaries of safety and appropriateness).

Finally, what are articulated as ‘negative’ goals can often be transferred to ‘positive’ goals, for example; “If I kill myself then all the crap will stop”, can be refelected as “So it would be good if you could feel better”.

SEND YOU QUESTIONS TO [email protected]


MEMBER NEWS


This section is for members to let people know about what they’ve been up to or is happening for them, and for requests for help. If you have an announcement, please post it to: [email protected].

Announcements this issue:

Solution Focused North West are part-funding a one-day workshop to be run by Rob Black in Liverpool, UK on 16th November 2006. The workshop will focus on using solution focused approaches in creative and imaginative ways with young people, adolescents and their families. Attendence is £65, or £35 for those who were Solution Focused North West members. For more details contact Prospect Solutions on +44 (0)7812 429 481.

✎

Carolyn Emmanuel wanted to let other members know what she’s up to, and ask for their help and advice:

“I have just been successfully selected for a place on the Professional Executive Committee of Lambeth Primary Care Trust in South London UK. The PCT is the strategic organisation of all services outside of secondary

and tertiary care including general practice, dentistry, optometry, district nursing, health visiting, podiatry, mental health services and more. I applied as an employee of Lambeth’s talking therapy services and am the first from such a service to be part of this organisation. That’s the information bit. Now I ask for some useful tips on how to best use my SFA skills in this position. Please email me on [email protected]. Thanks!”

✎

Those nice people at BRIEF wanted us to let you all know about the ‘Solutions in Organisations’ Conference, which is taking place on December 1st 2006 in London. There will be two plenaries and twelve workshops covering team-building, coaching, leadership, introducing initiatives effectively, management development,

school improvement planning, training, effectiveness profiling. For more information go to the web site: www.briefconsultancy.com or ring BRIEF on +44 (0)20 7600 3366

✎

Carole Waskett has to do something with all her spare time after stepping down from being UKASFP’s secretary this year! Her work in the health service tells her that lots of professionals in the north-west want to learn more about this wonderful approach. So she’s putting on some short courses on SF skills, and SF supervision, near her home in North Manchester in 2007. Have a look at her website www.northwestsolutions.co.uk for details.

CORRESPONDENCEWe welcome your views and comments on any article in Solution News, the UKASFP, or on any other solution focused topic. Send your correspondence to [email protected], indicating clearly whether you intend your correspondence for print or solely for consumption by the Solution News team.



http://www.briefconsultancy.com

http://www.northwestsolutions.co.uk


Documents

Solution News Vol2 Issue 3 October 2006