Top

Gepubliceerd in:

10-02-2025

Macht en dialoog: een review van discursief onderzoek

Auteurs: Ben Ong, Eleftheria Tseliou, Tom Strong, Niels Buus

Gepubliceerd in: Gezinstherapie Wereldwijd | Uitgave 1/2025

Samenvatting

Bij collaboratieve-dialogische benaderingen van gezinstherapie wordt de cliënt als expert gezien en zijn de verschillende perspectieven gelijkwaardig. Dit heeft geleid tot discussie over de manier waarop macht binnen dialogische therapieën geconceptualiseerd kan worden. Daarbij hebben wetenschappers theorieën gevormd overen onderzoek gedaan naar macht als iets sociaals dat tot stand komt via interacties. Via een review van discursief onderzoek van therapeutische gesprekken willen we meer inzicht krijgen in macht binnen de dialogische therapie. Daarom hebben we systematisch literatuuronderzoek gedaan met behulp van de bibliografische databases PsycINFO, PubMed en CINAHL. Aan de hand van discursief onderzoek van collaboratief-dialogische therapiesessies hebben we de bevindingen van 18 studies onderzocht en gekeken naar de relatie met macht binnen de interacties. Daaruit blijkt dat de nadruk vooral op de therapeut ligt en veel minder op de cliënt. De therapeut komt naar voren als katalysator van de dialoog die geringe of actieve respons gebruikt ter bevordering van de dialogische gesprekken. De therapeut gebruikt macht ook als gevolg van bredere institutionele en sociale verplichtingen die niet overeen kunnen komen met sommige interpretaties van de dialogische therapie. We kijken naar de implicaties voor de praktijk, waar het gebruik van macht om een sessie richting te geven de dialogische interacties stimuleert.

vorige artikel In hoeverre zijn de percepties die partners in de beginfase van relatietherapie hebben over de alliantie een functie van hun aanvankelijke verwachtingen over de therapie?

volgende artikel Tot elkaar komen: integratie van sekstherapie en Integratieve Behavioral Couple Therapy

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work. Family Process, 26(4), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00415.x.CrossRefPubMed

Anderson, H. (1995). Collaborative language systems: Toward a postmodern therapy. In Integrating family therapy: Handbook of family psychology and systems theory. (pag. 27–44). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10172-002.CrossRef

Anderson, H. (2005). Myths about “not-knowing”. Family Process, 44(4), 497–504.CrossRefPubMed

Anderson, H., & Gehart, D. R. (2022). Collaborative-dialogic practice: Relationships and conversations that make a difference across contexts and cultures (1e druk.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156260.CrossRef

Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27(4), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1988.00371.x.CrossRefPubMed

Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergan (red.), Therapy as social construction (pag. 25–39). SAGE.

Avdi, E. (2016). Fostering dialogue: Exploring the therapists’ discursive contributions in a couple therapy. In M. Borcsa & P. Rober (red.), Research perspectives in couple therapy (pag. 71–87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23306-2_6.CrossRef

Avdi, E., Lerou, V., & Seikkula, J. (2015). Dialogical features, therapist responsiveness, and agency in a therapy for psychosis. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 28(4), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2014.994692.CrossRef

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination four essays. University of Texas Press.

Bateson, G. (1987). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Aronson.

Borcsa, M., & Rober, P. (2016). Research perspectives in couple therapy: Discursive qualitative methods. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23306-2.CrossRef

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.CrossRef

Buus, N., Ong, B., Einboden, R., Lennon, E., Mikes-Liu, K., Mayers, S., & McCloughen, A. (2021). Implementing open dialogue approaches: A scoping review. Family Process, 60(4), 1117–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12695.CrossRefPubMed

Cruikshank, B. (2019). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/j.ctvv4126k.CrossRef

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. SAGE.

Finlay, L. (2021). Thematic analysis: The ‘good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, 11, 103–116.

Flaskas, C. (2002). Family therapy beyond postmodernism: Practice challenges theory. Brunner-Routledge.

Flaskas, C., & Humphreys, C. (1993). Theorizing about power: Intersecting the ideas of Foucault with the “problem” of power in family therapy. Family Process, 32(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1993.00035.x.CrossRefPubMed

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (2002). Archaeology of knowledge. Routledge.

Galbusera, L., & Kyselo, M. (2018). The difference that makes the difference: A conceptual analysis of the open dialogue approach. Psychosis, 10(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2017.1397734.CrossRef

Goldner, V. (1985). Feminism and family therapy. Family Process, 24(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1985.00031.x.CrossRefPubMed

Guilfoyle, M. (2003). Dialogue and power: A critical analysis of power in dialogical therapy. Family Process, 42(3), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00331.x.CrossRefPubMed

Guilfoyle, M. (2006). Using power to question the dialogical self and its therapeutic application. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 19(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070600655189.CrossRef

Guregård, S., & Seikkula, J. (2014). Establishing therapeutic dialogue with refugee families. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 36(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9263-5.CrossRef

Haarakangas, K., Seikkula, J., Alakare, B., & Aaltonen, J. (2007). Open dialogue: An approach to psychotherapeutic treatment of psychosis in northern Finland. In H. Anderson & D. R. Gehart (red.), Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference (pag. 221–233). Routledge.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1987). The problem of gender in family therapy theory. Family Process, 26(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00015.x.CrossRefPubMed

Heritage, J. (2013). Conversation analysis. In Garfinkel and ethnomethodology (pag. 233–292). Wiley.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103.CrossRef

Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009.CrossRef

Laitila, A. (2016). Introducing novelties into therapeutic dialogue: The importance of minor shifts of the therapist. In M. Borcsa & P. Rober (red.), Research perspectives in couple therapy (pag. 31–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23306-2_4.CrossRef

Lidbom, P. A., Bøe, T. D., Kristoffersen, K., Ulland, D., & Seikkula, J. (2014). A study of a network meeting: Exploring the interplay between inner and outer dialogues in significant and meaningful moments. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 35(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1052.CrossRef

Lidbom, P. A., Bøe, T. D., Kristoffersen, K., Ulland, D., & Seikkula, J. (2015). How participants’ inner dialogues contribute to significant and meaningful moments in network therapy with adolescents. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-015-9331-0.CrossRef

MacKinnon, L. K., & Miller, D. (1987). The new epistemology and the Milan approach: Feminist and sociopolitical considerations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13(2), 139–155.CrossRef

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Public Library of Science Medicine, 6(7), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.CrossRef

Nanouri, K., Tseliou, E., Abakoumkin, G., & Bozatzis, N. (2022). ‘Who decided this?’: Negotiating epistemic and deontic authority in systemic family therapy training. Discourse Studies, 24(1), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211037450.CrossRef

Olson, M., Seikkula, J., & Ziedonis, D. (2014). The key elements of dialogic practice in open dialogue. The University of Massachusetts Medical School. https://umassmed.edu/psychiatry/globalinitiatives/opendialogue/. Geraadpleegd op: 25 aug 2017.

Olson, M. E., Laitila, A., Rober, P., & Seikkula, J. (2012). The shift from monologue to dialogue in a couple therapy session: Dialogical investigation of change from the therapists’ point of view. Family Process, 51(3), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01406.x.CrossRefPubMed

Ong, B., & Buus, N. (2021). What does it mean to work ‘dialogically’ in open dialogue and family therapy? A narrative review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 42(3), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1464.CrossRef

Ong, B., Barnes, S., & Buus, N. (2021a). Downgrading deontic authority in open dialogue reflection proposals: A conversation analysis. Family Process, 60(4), 1217–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12586.CrossRefPubMed

Ong, B., Barnes, S., & Buus, N. (2021b). Eliciting stance and mitigating therapist authority in open dialogue meetings. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 47(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12454.CrossRefPubMed

Ong, B., Barnes, S., & Buus, N. (2022). Developing multiple perspectives by eliding agreement: A conversation analysis of open dialogue reflections. Discourse Studies, 24(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211037439.CrossRef

Päivinen, H., & Holma, J. (2016). Dominant story, power, and positioning. In M. Borcsa & P. Rober (red.), Research perspectives in couple therapy (pag. 89–104). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23306-2_7.CrossRef

Rober, P. (1999). The therapist’s inner conversation in family therapy practice: Some ideas about the self of the therapist, therapeutic impasse, and the process of reflection. Family Process, 38(2), 209–228.CrossRefPubMed

Rober, P. (2008). The therapist’s inner conversation in family therapy practice: Struggling with the complexi-ties of therapeutic encounters with families. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies, 7(4), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2008.9688471.CrossRef

Rober, P., Eesbeek, D., & Elliot, R. (2006). Talking about violence: A microanalysis of narrative processes in a family therapy session. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01609.x.CrossRefPubMed

Rossen, C. B., Schriver, K. N., Tarber, C., Nordahl, D. V., Thygesen Rasmussen, G., Ong, B., & Buus, N. (2020). “Y, what do you think about what X just said?” conversation analysis of stance-eliciting questions in open dialogue network meetings. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(4), 719–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12435.CrossRefPubMed

Schriver, K. N., Buus, N., & Rossen, C. B. (2019). Reflective practices in open dialogue meetings: Reporting and inferential ‘my side tellings’. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.007.CrossRef

Seikkula, J. (2002). Open dialogues with good and poor outcomes for psychotic crises: Examples from families with violence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(3), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2002.tb01183.x.CrossRefPubMed

Seikkula, J. (2008). Inner and outer voices in the present moment of family and network therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 478–491.CrossRef

Seikkula, J., & Arnkil, T. E. (2006). Dialogical meetings in social networks. Karnac.

Seikkula, J., & Olson, M. (2016). Therapists’ responses for enhancing change through dialogue: Dialogical investigations of change. In M. Borcsa & P. Rober (red.), Research perspectives in couple therapy (pag. 47–69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23306-2_5.CrossRef

Shotter, J. (1996). ‘Now I can go on:’ Wittgenstein and our embodied embeddedness in the ‘hurly-burly’ of life. Human Studies, 19(4), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00188850.CrossRef

Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for “withness” thinking. Organization Studies, 27, 585–604.CrossRef

Smoliak, O., Strong, T., & Elliott, R. (2018). Discursive ethics in therapeutic encounters. In O. Smoliak & T. Strong (red.), Therapy as discourse. The langugage of mental health (pag. 187–217). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93067-1_9.CrossRef

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260.CrossRef

Strong, T., & Sutherland, O. (2007). Conversational ethics in psychological dialogues: Discursive and collaborative considerations. Canadian Psychology, 48(2), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/cp2007011.CrossRef

Sutherland, O., Dienhart, A., & Turner, J. (2013a). Responsive persistence part II. Practices of postmodern therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39(4), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00334.x.CrossRefPubMed

Sutherland, O., Turner, J., & Dienhart, A. (2013b). Responsive persistence part I: Therapist influence in postmodern practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39(4), 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00333.x.CrossRefPubMed

Tseliou, E., Burck, C., Forbat, L., Strong, T., & O’Reilly, M. (2021). The discursive performance of change process in systemic and constructionist therapies: A systematic meta-synthesis review of in-session therapy discourse. Family Process, 60(1), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12560.CrossRefPubMed

Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.244.CrossRef

Vall, B., Seikkula, J., Laitila, A., Holma, J., & Botella, L. (2014). Increasing responsibility, safety, and trust through a dialogical approach: A case study in couple therapy for psychological abusive behavior. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 25(4), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2014.977672.CrossRef

Vall, B., Seikkula, J., Laitila, A., & Holma, J. (2016). Dominance and dialogue in couple therapy for psychological intimate partner violence. Contemporary Family Therapy, 38(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-015-9367-1.CrossRef

Vall, B., Seikkula, J., Laitila, A., & Holma, J. (2018). Embodiment and reflective practices: Conjoint therapy for psychological intimate partner violence: Embodiment and reflective practices. Journal of Family Therapy, 40, S45–S62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12142.CrossRef

Wahlström, J. (2016). Constructing the moral order of a relationship in couples therapy. In M. Borcsa & P. Rober (red.), Research perspectives in couple therapy (pag. 149–165). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23306-2_10.CrossRef

Waters, E., Ong, B., Mikes-Liu, K., McCloughen, A., Rosen, A., Mayers, S., Sidis, A., Dawson, L., & Buus, N. (2021). Open dialogue, need-adapted mental health care, and implementation fidelity: A discussion paper. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 30(3), 805–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12866.CrossRef

Watson, R. (2019). Jointly created authority: A conversation analysis of how power is managed by parents and systemic psychotherapists in children’s social care. Journal of Family Therapy, 41(3), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12244.CrossRef

Titel: Macht en dialoog: een review van discursief onderzoek
Auteurs: Ben Ong
Eleftheria Tseliou
Tom Strong
Niels Buus
Publicatiedatum: 10-02-2025
Uitgeverij: BSL Media & Learning
Gepubliceerd in: Gezinstherapie Wereldwijd / Uitgave 1/2025
Print ISSN: 1566-0206
Elektronisch ISSN: 1876-5874
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12440-025-00239-w

In hoeverre zijn de percepties die partners in de beginfase van relatietherapie hebben over de alliantie een functie van hun aanvankelijke verwachtingen over de therapie?

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Macht en dialoog: een review van discursief onderzoek

Samenvatting

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2025

Tot elkaar komen: integratie van sekstherapie en Integratieve Behavioral Couple Therapy

Motivatie en empathische accuraatheid tijdens conflictsituaties tussen partners: het is complex!

Een longitudinale studie naar gezinnen met eiceldonatie: gezinsfunctioneren na vijf jaar

In hoeverre zijn de percepties die partners in de beginfase van relatietherapie hebben over de alliantie een functie van hun aanvankelijke verwachtingen over de therapie?

Ten geleide

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Samenvatting

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Tot elkaar komen: integratie van sekstherapie en Integratieve Behavioral Couple Therapy

Motivatie en empathische accuraatheid tijdens conflictsituaties tussen partners: het is complex!

Een longitudinale studie naar gezinnen met eiceldonatie: gezinsfunctioneren na vijf jaar

In hoeverre zijn de percepties die partners in de beginfase van relatietherapie hebben over de alliantie een functie van hun aanvankelijke verwachtingen over de therapie?

Ten geleide