Fostering Dialogue: Exploring the Therapists’ Discursive Contributions in a Couple Therapy

  • Evrinomy Avdi


This chapter presents a discursive analysis of a systemic couple therapy, which took place over four sessions with a young, multicultural couple. The analysis aims to illuminate the interactional and discursive processes that underlie therapeutic work from a dialogical perspective. The process of change in this couple therapy could be broadly seen to involve shifts in meaning construction, in positioning and in interaction. More specifically, the analysis highlighted the construction of new relational meanings, a reduction of blamings and the negotiation of more agentic subject positions for the couple through the sessions. The primary therapist was shown to be active in shaping the unfolding conversation, although this activity was skilfully subtle. In brief, the therapist’s discursive agenda could be summed up as serving two main functions: eliciting narrative elaboration and expanding on nondominant narratives. A primary effect his talk had on the unfolding conversation was the expression of feelings, the elaboration of the clients’ narrative, the promotion of relational accounts and an increasing focus on resourcefulness and agency. The usefulness of discursive research for providing family therapists with concepts and tools to study talk-in-interaction is discussed. Moreover, it is argued that discursive analyses can help examine therapy as a joint dialogical achievement, furthering our understanding of the relational and intersubjective processes through which systemic therapy ‘gets done’.


Discourse Analysis Therapeutic Alliance Subject Position Couple Therapy Rhetorical Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson, H. (2012). Collaborative relationships and dialogic conversations: Ideas for a relationally responsive practice. Family Process, 51(1), 8–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, H., & Goolishian, Η. Α. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Angus, L. E., & McLeod, J. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy: Practice, theory and research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2007). Members’ and analysts’ analytic categories: Researching psychotherapy. In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 166–181). Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avdi, E., & Georgaca, E. (2007a). Discourse analysis and psychotherapy: A critical review. European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 9(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avdi, E., & Georgaca, E. (2007b). Narrative research in psychotherapy: A critical review. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 80, 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barkham, M., Stiles, W. B., Lambert, M. J., & Mellor-Clark, J. (2010). Building a rigorous and relevant knowledge-based for the psychological therapies. In M. Barkham, G. Hardy, & J. Mellor-Clark (Eds.), Developing and delivering practice-based evidence: A Guide for the Psychological Therapies (pp. 21–61). London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertrando, P. (2007). The dialogical therapist. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
  9. Buttny, R. (2004). Talking problems: Studies on discursive construction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, K. (1986). The process of problem re(formulation) in psychotherapy. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8, 44–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, S. D., & Piercy, F. P. (2007). What couples of therapy model developers and their former students say about change, part II: Model-independent common factors and an integrative framework. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 344–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott, R. (2012). Qualitative methods for studying psychotherapy change process. In D. J. Harper & A. Thompson (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: An introduction for students and practitioners (pp. 69–82). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Georgaca, E., & Avdi, E. (2012). Discourse analysis. In D. J. Harper & A. Thompson (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: An introduction for students and practitioners (pp. 147–162). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Guilfoyle, M. (2001). Problematizing psychotherapy: The discursive production of a bulimic. Culture & Psychology, 7, 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guilfoyle, M. (2003). Dialogue and power: A critical analysis of power in dialogical therapy. Family Process, 42(3), 331–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Guilfoyle, M. (2006). Using power to question the dialogical self and its therapeutic application. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 19(1), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hak, T., & de Boer, F. (1995). Professional interpretation of patient’s talk in the initial interview. In J. Siegfried (Ed.), Therapeutic and everyday discourse as behavior change: Towards a micro-analysis in psychotherapy process research. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  20. Harré, R., & Van Lagenhove, L. (Eds.). (1998). Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1998). Changing the subject (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Hermans, H. J. M., & Dimaggio, G. (2004). The dialogical self in psychotherapy. London: Brunner-Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kogan, S. M., & Gale, J. E. (1997). Decentering therapy: Textual analysis of a narrative therapy session. Family Process, 36, 101–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurri, K., & Wahlström, J. (2005). Placement of responsibility and moral reasoning in couple therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 352–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambert, M. J., & Ogles, B. M. (2004). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 139–193). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. McLeod, J. (2011). Qualitative research in counselling and psychotherapy (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. McLeod, J., & Lynch, G. (2000). ‘This is our life’: Strong evaluation in psychotherapy narrative. European Journal of Psychotherapy, Counselling and Health, 3(3), 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norcross, J. C. (2011). Psychotherapy relationships that work: Evidence-based responsiveness (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salvatore, S., & Gennaro, A. (2012). The inherent dialogicality of the clinical exchange: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Dialogical Science, 6(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  30. Seikkula, J. (2011). Becoming dialogical: Psychotherapy or a way of life? The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32(3), 179–193.Google Scholar
  31. Seikkula, J., & Arnkil, T. E. (2006). Dialogical meetings in social networks. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
  32. Seikkula, J., & Olson, M. E. (2003). The open dialogue approach to acute psychosis: Its poetics and micropolitics. Family Process, 42(3), 403–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Seikkula, J., & Trimble, D. (2005). Healing elements of therapeutic conversation: Dialogue as an embodiment of love. Family Process, 44(4), 461–475.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sprenkle, D. H., Davis, S. D., & Lebow, J. L. (2009). Common factors in couple and family therapy. London: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Stancombe, J., & White, S. (1997). Notes on the tenacity of therapeutic presuppositions in process research: Examining the artfulness of blamings in family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 19, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stancombe, J., & White, S. (2005). Cause and responsibility: Towards an interactional understanding of blaming and ‘neutrality’ in family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 27(4), 330–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stiles, W. B., Honos-Webb, L., & Surko, M. (1998). Responsiveness in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5(4), 439–458.Google Scholar
  38. Stiles, W. B., & Shapiro, D. A. (1994). Disabuse of the drug metaphor: Psychotherapy process-outcome correlations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 942–948.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Strong, T., Busch, R. S., & Couture, S. (2008). Conversational evidence in therapeutic dialogue. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 288–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor, S. R. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology, 9, 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Discourse theory and practice: A reader. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. White, M., & Epston, M. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations