Advertisement

Contemporary Family Therapy

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 400–419 | Cite as

Reflections on Family Therapy in Australia

  • Banu Moloney
Original Paper

Abstract

Family therapy in Australia has been influenced by ideas mostly from North America and Europe. However Australian family therapists have also made their own significant contributions to theory and practice. The vastness of the continent combined with a relatively small population has presented challenges with respect to the formation of a national association and for many years, the Australian Journal of Family Therapy (later the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy Board acted as de facto national voice for the discipline. The Australian Association of Family Therapy was formed as recently as 2011. It has a total of over 1,000 members and is the sole organisation representing family therapy and family therapists in Australia. Clinical membership is achieved via successful completion of a 2-year sequence of study in family therapy followed by 50 hours of supervision (or its equivalent). Family Therapy training is mostly delivered in the four most populated states in Australia at both University level and through private organisations registered to provide training at government approved levels. La Trobe University (through the Bouverie Centre), Swinburne University (through the Williams Road Family Therapy Centre) and the University of New South Wales currently provide training leading to specialist qualification in family therapy. A number of other private institutions also provide recognised family therapy training. To date, family therapists and couple therapists in Australia have not in the main shared common platforms such as conferences, training and professional journals. Narrative therapy has also remained somewhat detached from “mainstream” family therapy. Family therapy qualifications are often valued by prospective employers even when duty statements are focused on the more traditional skills of professionals such as psychologists or social workers. Researching family therapy outcomes remains challenging. But although there is increasing practiced-based evidence of the efficacy of family therapy, Australian family therapists as a group are yet to concentrate their efforts on convincing funding bodies of its usefulness. At the same time, via the teaching and promotion of family sensitive practices, systemic ideas are being increasingly incorporated within areas of mental health, disability, alcohol and drug dependency, and within a range of health and welfare areas that impact not just on the individuals but on those close to them.

Keywords

Family therapy Family sensitive practice Systemic therapy Australia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge the support and contributions of Professor Lawrence Moloney, Max Cornwell (former editor of the ANZJFT) and Dr. Jeff Young.

References

  1. Battams, S., Roche, A., et al. (2010). For Kids’ sake. A workforce development resource for family sensitive policy and practice in the alcohol and other drug sector. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction.Google Scholar
  2. Carr, A. (2000). What works with children and adolescents? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Carr, A. (2009). What works with children, adolescents and adults? A review of research on the effectiveness of psychotherapy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, J., Mackenzie, L., Clark, V., Wills, A., Roth, J., Miller, H., et al. (1998). What distinguishes a family therapist? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 19(3), 152–159.Google Scholar
  5. Cornwell, M. (1982). Beyond the cringe: Family therapy in an Australian context. The Australian Journal of Family Therapy, 4(1), ii.Google Scholar
  6. Cornwell, M. (2004). In the right place at the right time: An interview with Brian Stagoll. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  7. Coulter, S. (2011). Systemic family therapy for families who have experienced trauma: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Social Work, 41(3), 502–519.Google Scholar
  8. Flaskas, C. (2002). Family therapy beyond postmodernism: Practice, challenges, theory. Hove: Bruner-Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flaskas, C. (2010). Frameworks for practice in the systemic field: Part 1 continuities and transitions in family therapy knowledge. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 232–247.Google Scholar
  10. Figley, C. R. (2010). Systemic trauma: Theory research and treatment implications. New Orleans: Figley Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Gibney, P. (2003). The pragmatics of therapeutic practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gibney, P. (2006). The double bind theory: Still crazy-making after all these years. Psychotherapy in Australia, 12(3), 48–55.Google Scholar
  13. Goding, G. (1992). The history and principles of family therapy. Melbourne: Victorian Association of Family Therapists.Google Scholar
  14. James, K., & McIntyre, D. (1983). Reproduction of families. The social role of family therapy? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. James, K. (1984). Breaking the chains of gender: Family therapy’s position? Australian Journal of Family Therapy, 5, 241–248.Google Scholar
  16. James, K. (1992). The social and political context of family therapy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 4(2), 108.Google Scholar
  17. Jeffreys, H., Rogers, N., & Hirte, C. (2011). Keeping the child in mind: Child protection practice and parent mental health. Adelaide: Department for Families and Communities.Google Scholar
  18. Kempler, W. (1973). Principles of gestalt family therapy: A gestalt-experiential handbook. Nordahls Trykkeri: As Joh.Google Scholar
  19. Laing, R. D., & Esterson, A. (1964). Sanity, madness and the family. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  20. Luepnitz, D. (1988). The family interpreted: Feminist theory and clinical practice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. McGoldrick, M., Pearce, J. K., & Giordano, J. (1996). Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B., Guerney, B., Rosman, B., & Schumer, F. (1967). Families of the slums: An exploration of their structure and treatment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Moloney, B., & Coade, S. (2012). A black and white approach to teaching family therapy (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Morawetz, A., & Walker, G. (1984). Brief therapy with single parent families. New York: Bruener/Mazel Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Perlesz, A., McNair, R., Dempsey, D., & Wise, S. (2002). Lesbian parenting: Issues, strengths and challenges. Family Matters, 63(Spring–Summer), 40–49.Google Scholar
  26. Quadrio, C. (2004). Family therapy in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25(2), 64–67.Google Scholar
  27. Rhodes, P. (2012). Nothing to fear? Thoughts on the history of family therapy and the potential contribution of research. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 33(2), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Satir, V. (1983). Conjoint family therapy (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behaviour Books.Google Scholar
  29. Scott, D. (2009). Think child, think family: How adult specialist services can support children at risk of abuse and neglect. Family Matters, 81, 37–42.Google Scholar
  30. Sheinberg, M., & True, F. (2008). Treating family relational trauma: A recursive process using a decision dialogue. Family Process, 47(2), 173–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, J., Osman, C., & Goding, M. (1990). Reclaiming the emotional aspects of the therapist-family system. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 11(3), 140–146.Google Scholar
  32. Stagoll, B. (1983). Family therapy in Australia: Taking a squiz. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 11(1), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stagoll, B. (1996). Coming across: Family therapy in Australia and New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 17(1), 1.Google Scholar
  34. Stagoll, B. (2004). Systemic therapy and the world cup: Systemic couple therapy and depression. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 61–63.Google Scholar
  35. Waldegrave, C. (2009). Cultural, gender, and socioeconomic contexts in therapeutic and social policy work. Family Process, 48(1), 85–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Waldegrave, C., Tamasese, K., Tuhaka, F., & Campbell, W. (2003). Just therapy—a journey: A collection of papers from the just therapy team, New Zealand. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Wampold, B. (2001). The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods and Findings. MahWah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Wertheim, E. S. (1973a). Family therapy and its social implications. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 7, 146–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wertheim, E. S. (1973b). The science and typology of family systems. Family Process, 12, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wertheim, E. S. (1973c). The science and typology of family systems II. Further theoretical and practical considerations. Family Process, 14, 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White, M. (1982). Editorial. The Australian Journal of Family Therapy, 3:4:171.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.La Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations