Advertisement

Contemporary Family Therapy

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 451–462 | Cite as

Meta-dialogue

  • Jürgen Hargens
  • Uwe Grau
Clinical and Educational Issues

Abstract

On the basis of recent developments in constructivism and social constructionism, the authors propose an approach that takes self-recursiveness seriously: Meta-dialogue, an extension of reflecting teams and reflecting positions. The authors see therapists as experts in interviewing (questioning, asking, and reflecting) and clients as experts for their different domains (their lives). Thus, the authors see it as crucial to express basic respect to the people who come to consult them in a cooperative way in order to enlarge the options of all the people taking part in the interview. The structure of meta-dialogue is described in detail and illustrated with a case example.

Key Words

Constructivism meta-dialogue reflecting teams reflecting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work.Family Process, 26, 415–428.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, T. (Ed.) (1991).The reflecting team: Dialogues and dialogues about the dialogues. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, H., Goolishian, H., & Winderman, L. (1986). Problem determined systems: Toward transformation in family therapy.Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 5, 1–14.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for family theory.Family Process, 27, 371–393.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. (1972).Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballentine.Google Scholar
  6. Bateson, G. (1979).Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966).The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  8. Bobele, M., Chenail, R., Douthit, P., Green, S., & Stuhlberg, T. (1989). Das interaktive Team: Ein therapeutisches Modell (An interacting team model of therapy).Zeitschrift für Systemische Therapie, 7, 146–153.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, J., & Treacher, A. (1989).Problems and solutions in marital and family therapy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Eberle-Grass, S., & Hess, T. (1993). Systemische Ko-Therapie-Versuch einer Rehabilitierung (Systemic oriented co-therapy: An attempt to rehabilitate).Familiendynamik, 18, 163–179.Google Scholar
  11. Efran, J. S., Lukens, M. D., & Lukens, R. J. (1990).Language, structure, and change: Frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  12. Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.Google Scholar
  13. Grau, W., & Hargens, J. (1992a). Metapher-Fragen: Ein Beispel konstruktivistischer Praxis (Metaphor questioning: An example of constructivist work).Zeitschrift für Systemische Therapie, 10(2), 101–110.Google Scholar
  14. Grau, W., & Hargens, J. (1992b). Beratung von Politikern aus konstruktivistischer Sicht: Einige persönliche Erfahrungen (Consulting politicians from a constructivist view: Some personal experiences).Systeme 6(1), 67–77.Google Scholar
  15. Hargens, J. (1993). Therapy as conversation. May constructivist guidelines help? Cooperating, reflecting, opening up in meta-dialogue.Context, 15, 29–31.Google Scholar
  16. Hargens, J., & Grau, U. (1990). Kooperieren, reflektieren, offentlich machen: Skizze eines systemschen Ansatzes auf konstruktivistischer Grundlage (Cooperating, reflecting, making open: Some ideas for a systemic-constructivist approach.Systeme, 4(2), 151–155, 161–163.Google Scholar
  17. Hargens, J., & Grau, U., in cooperation with Marilyn Leeds (1994). Cooperating, reflecting, making open and meta-dialogue: Notes on putting a constructivist view into practice.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 15(2), 81–90.Google Scholar
  18. Kingston, P., & Smith, D. (1985). Live consultation without a one-way screen.Australia and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 6(2), 71–75.Google Scholar
  19. Landau, M. (1984). Human evolution as narrative.American Scientist, 72, 262–268.Google Scholar
  20. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987).The tree of knowledge. Boston: Shambala.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, D., & Kingston, P. (1980). Live supervision without a one-way screen.Journal of Family Therapy, 2, 379–287.Google Scholar
  22. Tomm, K. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part I: Strategizing as a fourth guidelines for the therapist.Family Process, 26, 3–13.Google Scholar
  23. von Foerster, H. (1985).Sicht und Einsicht (Sight and insight). Braunschweig-Weisbaden: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  24. von Glasersfeld, E. (1987).Wissen, Sprache und Wirklichkeit (Knowledge, language, and reality). Braunschweig-Weisbaden: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  25. Watzlawick, P. (Ed.) (1984).The invented reality. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  26. White, M., & Epston, D. (1989).Literate means to therapeutic ends. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Hargens
    • 1
  • Uwe Grau
    • 2
  1. 1.Projekt: SystemMeynGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations