Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reflections on Family Therapy in Australia

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

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.

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

Notes

  1. Later to become the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy.

  2. Moshe Lang, Graham Martin, Brian Stagoll, Eleanor (Ruth) Wertheim and Michael White were key members of the inaugural editorial team of this journal as were Margaret Topham in NSW and Anne Sved-Williams from SA.

  3. Well epitomised at the time by the 1970 film, “Family Life” (1971) which was popularly seen to be reflecting the theories of RD Laing.

  4. It was important, for example, to have a coherent response to the many thoughtful criticisms of structural family therapy put forward by commentators such as Luepnitz (1988); or to guard against the more extreme expressions of strategic family therapy, whereby symptoms were prescribed with insufficient thought to possible negative ramifications for family members.

  5. There are of course exceptions. For example Australia’s 65 Family Relationship Centres, funded by Government mainly to provide services to separated parents in dispute over their children, are required as part of their contractual arrangements to provide child-friendly buildings and environments.

  6. Practice based evidence can complement and in some cases provide an alternative to evidence based practice, the canons of which are more easily applied to manualised and carefully controlled approaches to (preferably single) individual problems or diagnostic categories (see for example Wampold 2001).

References

  • 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 

  • Carr, A. (2000). What works with children and adolescents? London: Routledge.

  • Carr, A. (2009). What works with children, adolescents and adults? A review of research on the effectiveness of psychotherapy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cornwell, M. (1982). Beyond the cringe: Family therapy in an Australian context. The Australian Journal of Family Therapy, 4(1), ii.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Flaskas, C. (2002). Family therapy beyond postmodernism: Practice, challenges, theory. Hove: Bruner-Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Figley, C. R. (2010). Systemic trauma: Theory research and treatment implications. New Orleans: Figley Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibney, P. (2003). The pragmatics of therapeutic practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibney, P. (2006). The double bind theory: Still crazy-making after all these years. Psychotherapy in Australia, 12(3), 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goding, G. (1992). The history and principles of family therapy. Melbourne: Victorian Association of Family Therapists.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, K., & McIntyre, D. (1983). Reproduction of families. The social role of family therapy? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, K. (1984). Breaking the chains of gender: Family therapy’s position? Australian Journal of Family Therapy, 5, 241–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, K. (1992). The social and political context of family therapy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 4(2), 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kempler, W. (1973). Principles of gestalt family therapy: A gestalt-experiential handbook. Nordahls Trykkeri: As Joh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laing, R. D., & Esterson, A. (1964). Sanity, madness and the family. London: Tavistock.

  • Luepnitz, D. (1988). The family interpreted: Feminist theory and clinical practice. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoldrick, M., Pearce, J. K., & Giordano, J. (1996). Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Moloney, B., & Coade, S. (2012). A black and white approach to teaching family therapy (in press).

  • Morawetz, A., & Walker, G. (1984). Brief therapy with single parent families. New York: Bruener/Mazel Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlesz, A., McNair, R., Dempsey, D., & Wise, S. (2002). Lesbian parenting: Issues, strengths and challenges. Family Matters, 63(Spring–Summer), 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quadrio, C. (2004). Family therapy in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25(2), 64–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satir, V. (1983). Conjoint family therapy (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behaviour Books.

  • 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 

  • Sheinberg, M., & True, F. (2008). Treating family relational trauma: A recursive process using a decision dialogue. Family Process, 47(2), 173–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stagoll, B. (1983). Family therapy in Australia: Taking a squiz. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 11(1), 16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stagoll, B. (1996). Coming across: Family therapy in Australia and New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 17(1), 1.

  • 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.

  • Waldegrave, C. (2009). Cultural, gender, and socioeconomic contexts in therapeutic and social policy work. Family Process, 48(1), 85–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wampold, B. (2001). The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods and Findings. MahWah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

  • Wertheim, E. S. (1973a). Family therapy and its social implications. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 7, 146–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheim, E. S. (1973b). The science and typology of family systems. Family Process, 12, 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheim, E. S. (1973c). The science and typology of family systems II. Further theoretical and practical considerations. Family Process, 14, 285–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, M. (1982). Editorial. The Australian Journal of Family Therapy, 3:4:171.

Websites

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Banu Moloney.

Additional information

In constructing a narrative about the development of family therapy in Australia since the early 1970s, I have relied on many collegial conversations, as well as conference presentations and publications by Australian family therapists. Though some of these colleagues are referred to, not all who have contributed to the flourishing of family therapy have been mentioned individually. That would have been a near impossible task. The narrative is inevitably one of many possible narratives and inevitably selective in its focus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moloney, B. Reflections on Family Therapy in Australia. Contemp Fam Ther 35, 400–419 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9272-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9272-4

Keywords

Navigation