Skip to main content
Log in

Exploring Master Therapists’ Use of Power in Conversation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Contemporary Family Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Various theoretical approaches to therapy place different emphases on the use of power in therapy. In this study, we explore six master therapists’ use of power via communicational control for theoretical consistency. Results indicate that all therapists, regardless of their stance on power, use the role of therapist to exert power in an initial therapy session. Master therapists, in general, did appear to be theoretically consistent with their stated philosophies of therapy. Suggestions for future studies exploring power therapists have are included.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Evolving ideas about the implications for theory and practice. Family Process, 27, 371–393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 25–39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avis, J. M. (1998). Commentary: Does neutrality neutralize feminist awareness? A Feminist response to Scheel and Ivey. Contemporary Family Therapy, 20(3), 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beitin, B. K., & Allen, K. R. (2005). A multilevel approach to integrating social justice and family therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 24, 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cecchin, G. (1987). Hypothesizing, circularity and neutrality revisited: An invitation to curiosity. Family Process, 26, 405–414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cecchin, G. (1992). Constructing therapeutic possibilities. In S. McNamee & K. J Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 86−95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, W. (1991). Family therapy goes postmodern. Family Therapy Networker, 15(5), 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escudero, V., & Rogers, L. E. (2004). Analyzing relational communication. In L. E Rogers & V. Escudero (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 51–79). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaskas, C., & Humphreys, C. (1993). Theorizing about power: Intersecting the ideas of Foucault with the “problem” of power in family therapy. Family Process, 32, 35–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Wildman, J. (1991). Interpersonal control in structural and Milan systemic family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 395–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J. (2000). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, T., Moret, L. B., Gale, J., & Kampmeyer, K. L. (2001). Therapists’ gender assumptions and how these assumptions influence therapy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 12, 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family relational communication control coding system. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Jones, E. (1993). Family systems therapy: Development in the Milan-systemic therapies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, B. (1983). Aesthetics of change. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. M., & Wieling, E. (2002). Points of connection and disconnection: A look at feminism and postmodernism in family therapy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 14(2), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, G., & Gehart, D. R. (2003). Sociopolitical activist or conversational partner? Distinguishing the position of the therapist in narrative and collaborative therapies. Family Process, 42, 19–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nylund, D., & Nylund, D. A. (2003). Narrative therapy as counter-hegemonic practice. Men and Masculinities, 5, 386–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., Ellis, M. V., & Sargent, J. (1993) Communication processes in structural family therapy: Case study of an anorexic family. Journal of Family Psychology, 6, 308–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). Paradox and counterparadox. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, M., Carter, B., Papp, P., & Silverstein, O. (1988). The invisible web: Gender patterns in family relationships. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan J. Murphy.

Appendix

Appendix

 

Table 7

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murphy, M.J., Cheng, WJ. & Werner-Wilson, R.J. Exploring Master Therapists’ Use of Power in Conversation. Contemp Fam Ther 28, 475–484 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-006-9016-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-006-9016-9

Keywords

Navigation