Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
devotion of the average family therapy course (and most of the standard textbooks) to teaching the historical development of the movement, via a chronological survey of the various 'schools', might be worth critical examination. In my experience, students new to family therapy typically find a breathless canter through thirty years of changing theories and ideological shifts confusing and daunting. Surely what is needed, at least at the beginning level of training, is an emphasis on the assumptions, and the interventions, that are common to all (or at least, most) family therapy practice, regardless of theoretical and ideological allegiance? The insistence on teaching 'the schools' is probably part of the phenomenon by which trainers tend to replicate their own training - something that can result in less-thanuseful practices as well as lack of clarity in curriculum design. We need to be willing to look critically at both texts and exercises, or we may (as Jeff Young observes of family of origin presentations) be simply imposing a 'rite of passage' or even a 'hazing exercise' on a new generation of students. A tendency to ignore the needs of the learning group (in fact, to ignore the entire field of group dynamics) was also characteristic of much early family therapy training (especially in shorter courses), and its dead hand still lies over some training programs today. The conscious fostering of cohesion, safety and interpersonal honesty in a learning group is not simply fundamental to conducting ethical and productive family of origin presentations in a training context, as Young and his co-authors argue; it is fundamental to creating effective learning outcomes for every program. The skills of the family therapist and the skills of the group therapist have much in common. Above all, there is a need to take seriously the possibility of better integrating the special perspectives of systems work with those of other well-established therapeutic approaches and models. Barbara Fraser's course, reviewed in this issue, makes cross-connections with Attachment Theory and the Object Relations field; might we not also fruitfully compare task-setting in family therapy with tasksetting in standard behaviour modification programs, or Narrative practices, like externalising, with the healing practices of traditional, non-Western cultures? Such comparisons would not only help students to place their learning in a wider context, but also assist them to see what is different about systems work. Hugh Crago iii
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy – Wiley
Published: Sep 1, 2003
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.