Title: Emerging Practices of Action in Systemic Therapy: How and Why Family Therapists use Action Methods in their Work. Name: Chip Chimera This is a digitised version of a dissertation submitted to the University of Bedfordshire. It is available to view only. This item is subject to copyright. Emerging Practices of Action in Systemic Therapy: How and Why Family Therapists use Action Methods in their Work. Chip Chimera Professional Doctorate in Systemic Practice 2015 UNIVERSITY OF BEDFORDSHIRE Emerging Practices of Action in Systemic Therapy: How and Why Family Therapists use Action Methods in their Work. By Chip Chimera A thesis submitted to the University of Bedfordshire in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Professional Practice. March 2015 Emerging Practices of Action in Systemic Therapy: How and why family therapists use action methods in their work Chip Chimera ABSTRACT This thesis sets out to explore the processes involved when family therapists decide to introduce an action method into a therapy session. Action methods are defined as therapist led physical activities which are introduced into the session for the purpose of enabling the healing of relationships. The literature is examined in relation to connections between family therapy approaches using action and psychodrama psychotherapy relation to work with families and couples. Literature which integrates the two approaches is identified. The core of the study is composed of five interviews with experienced and senior family therapists about how they use action with clients in sessions. It focuses on the beliefs, behaviours and actions which are present at the moment the therapists decide to use action. The interviews examine the therapists’ training and current practice culture, their guiding beliefs and principles about the use of action and the theories on which they have drawn in considering the implementation of action methods. Participants were asked to describe an episode of action by giving a verbal account as well as undertaking a sculpt of the episode using ‘small world’ figures. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a unique approach blending psychodramatic role analysis (Williams 1989) with the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) (Cronen and Pearce 1985) a communication theory approach used by systemic psychotherapists. The findings indicate that systemic therapists do not have one overarching theoretical approach to using action in therapy, but draw on a range of different models which may be derived from different systemic approaches. The findings further indicate that theories of action which include neurobiological information processing and embodiment are introduced into systemic trainings as important in understanding how action methods impact on individuals and families. A format for therapists to evaluate their use of action methods is proposed for use in supervision or training. It follows the format that is used in the analysis, using psychodramatic role analysis and a CMM hierarchical structure which proposes opening space, spontaneity and playfulness as markers for the culture, identity and relationship levels of the analysis. i DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is my own unaided work. It is being submitted for the degree of (name award) at the University of Bedfordshire. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any other University. Name of candidate: Kathleen Chimera Signature: Date: 13th June 2015 ii Acknowledgements This thesis represents a journey which started many years ago and it is impossible to thank everyone who contributed to my learning in the adventure of action methods. However it would not have been possible to get to this point without the concerted help of a number of people. In particular I would like to thank Mario Cossa, my psychodrama friend, conspirator and inspiration; the ‘three graces’ Barbara McKay, Sharon Bond and Arlene Vetere gave me very honest and at times painful feedback but never flagged in their support; Zerka Moreno and Marcia Karp for their generosity of time, energy and enthusiasm for psychodramatic family therapy; my supervisor Michael Preston-Shoot; my students at IFT who have been willing to ‘have a go’ for the last 15 years; and of course my family who got very used to hearing me say ‘Just a minute, I’ll be there in a minute’ - Emily Giola, Stuart Redknap, and the grandchildren - Maria Lily, Harrison and Sienna. iii Table of contents Abstract ……………………………………………………………………...i Declaration…………………………………………………………………...ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………..iii 1.0 Chapter One: Introduction to this study……………………….. 1 1.1 Prologue…...……………………………………………….. 1 1.2 The beginning of the journey….………………………….. 2 1.3 Action in Family Therapy….………………………………. 7 1.4 Overall aims of the study…………………………………... 7 2.0 Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………… 9 2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………….. 9 2.2 Definition of action and action methods …..……………… 9 2.3 The literature search methodology …..……………………. 11 2.4 Exclusions from the literature review …..…………………. 12 2.5 The literature surveyed ..…………………………………... 13 2.6 Psychodrama and family therapy – the history of mutual influence ..……………………………………..... 14 2.7 Family and couple work in psychodrama literature………... 19 2.8 Psychodrama in systemic literature ……………………….. 21 2.8.1 Systemic work with couples in action……...……… 26 2.9 Integrative literature: systemic and psychodramatic ……… 31 2.10 Shorter integrative articles ………………………………… 38 2.10.1 Work with families ………………………………... 38 iv 2.10.2 Work with couples ………………………………… 44 2.10.3 Other integrative writing …………………………... 48 2.11 Research ………………………………………………….... 48 2.12 Summary of this section ……………………………………52 2.13 Summary of the literature …………………………………. 52 3.0 Chapter Three: Methodology……………………………………..54 3. Overview of the chapter …………………………………… 54 3.1 Overall concept for emerging practices of action …………. 54 3.1.2 History of this project ……………………………... 56 3.1.3 Timeline of the project ……………………………. 56 3.2 Selection of the Methodology …………………………….. 57 3.2.1 Qualitative methods ……………………………….. 57 3.2.2 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis ………... 58 3.2.3 Grounded theory …………………………………... 58 3.2.4 Discursive analysis ………………………………... 59 3.3 The Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) ……… 59 3.3.1. CMM as a practical theory ………………………… 60 3.3.2 Definition of terms in CMM ………………………. 61 Context ……………………………………………. 61 Meta-communication ……………………………… 62 Logical forces …………………………………….. 63 Contextual force …………………………………… 64 v Implicative force …………………………………... 65 Prefigurative force ………………………………… 66 Practical force ………………………………………67 Grammar …………………………………………... 67 Rules ……………………………............................. 67 a) Constitutive rules ………………………….. 67 b) Regulative rules …………………………… 68 c) Deontic operators ………………………….. 68 Coherence …………………………………………. 69 Coordination ………………………………………. 69 Strange Loops ………………………………………69 Unwanted repetitive patterns (URPs) ……………... 70 3.3.3 The application of CMM to this project …………... 71 3.3.4 CMM as a research tool …………………………… 72 3.3.5 Critique of CMM ………………………………….. 72 3.4 Psychodrama Role Analysis: history and rationale ……….. 73 3.4.1 The concept of role in psychodrama ………………. 76 3.5 Small world figures ………………………………………... 79 3.6 Application of the methodology …………………………... 80 3.6.1 Overview …………………………………………... 80 3.6.2 The semi-structured interview …………………….. 81 3.6.3 Role analysis ………………………………………. 82 vi 3.6.4 Role analyses and logical forces ……………………84 3.6.5 Implications for practice …………………………... 84 3.7 Data collection …………………………………………….. 84 3.7.1 Selection of participants …………………………… 84 3.7.2 Pilot ………………………………………………... 86 3.8. Research Rigour …………………………………………… 88 3.8.1 Ethics ……………………………………………....88 3.8.2 Validity/credibility ………………………………… 88 3.8.3 Reliability ………………………………………….. 88 3.8.4 Generalizability ……………………………………. 89 3.8.5 Reflexivity ………………………………………….89 4.0 Chapter Four: Application of the methodology………………… 90 4. Overview ………………………………………………….. 90 Step One …………………………………………………… 90 Step Two …………………………………………………... 91 Step Three …………………………………………………. 92 Step Four …………………………………………………... 92 Step Five …………………………………………………... 93 Step Six ……………………………………………………. 93 Step Seven …………………………………………………. 93 Step Eight …………………………………………………. 93 5.0 Chapter Five : Data analysis………………………………………94 vii 5.1 Analysis T1 ………………………………………………... 94 5.2 Analysis T2 ………………………………………………... 115 5.3 Analysis T3 ………………………………………………... 137 5.4 Analysis T4 ………………………………………………... 171 5.5 Analysis T5 ………………………………………………... 191 6.0 Chapter Six : Summary ………………………………………….. 217 6. Overview …………………………………………………... 217 6.1 Common factors in the interviews ………………………… 217 6.2 Unique factors in the interviews …………………………... 217 6.3 Summary of themes which emerged in the hierarchical Levels ……………………………………………………… 219 6.4 Critique ……………………………………………………. 220 7.0 Chapter 7 : Discussion …………………………………………… 221 7.1 Summary of overall findings ……………………………… 221 7.2 Coherence …………………………………………………. 221 7.3 Ethical practice ……………………………………………. 223 7.4 Introducing action into therapy: three related levels of context …………………………………………………….. 224 7.4.1 The Therapeutic Culture level of context: Therapeutic Love – Opening space ……………….. 226 7.4.2 Power ……………………………………………… 227 a) Power invested in institutions: access to services viii and ‘The way we do things here.” ………………… 229 b) Responsibility to junior staff …………………… 231 c) Expertise as power ……………………………… 232 d) Knowledge as power ……………………………