Top

Gepubliceerd in:

15-05-2024

Onderzoeken wat we doen – het paradigma van systemisch gezinsonderzoek: deel 2

Auteurs: Kristoffer Whittaker, Jan Stokkebekk, Lennart Lorås, Terje Tilden

Gepubliceerd in: Gezinstherapie Wereldwijd | Uitgave 2/2024

Samenvatting

Dit is het tweede artikel van een tweeluik dat gericht is op de ideologische en filosofische voorkeur voor hoe het veld zich verhoudt tot onderzoek op het gebied van systemische relatie- en gezinstherapie (RGT) en de manier waarop dit wordt uitgevoerd. In het eerste artikel is beschreven hoe het veld van systemische RGT gebaat zou zijn bij een basis van best beschikbare kennis via de principes van evidence-based practice, en in dit artikel geven we de rationale achter een programma voor systemisch gezinstherapeutisch onderzoek dat methodologische verscheidenheid waarborgt. De noodzaak tot multimethodologisch systemisch onderzoek wordt ook duidelijk in de zelfreflectiesverslagen van de auteurs; over hun problemen met het verkrijgen van vaardigheden in- en kennis over kwantitatieve methoden. We zijn daarom overtuigd van de noodzaak tot transmethodologische reflexiviteit en van onze voorkeur voor methodologische verscheidenheid in statistische vaardigheden van onderlinge afhankelijkheid van observaties (d.w.z. niet-afhankelijkheid). Onzes inziens zijn dit essentiële componenten van een systemisch onderzoeksprogramma.

vorige artikel Onderzoeken wat we doen – het paradigma van systemisch gezinsonderzoek: deel 1

volgende artikel Wat ouders willen van een diagnostisch rapport over autisme: een onderzoek met interviews bij ouders die binnenkomen bij een diagnostisch centrum voor neurobiologische ontwikkelingsstoornissen

Er is geen gemeenschappelijke definitie van “systemisch” in ons onderzoeksgebied omdat de betekenis ervan kan variëren van extreem tot gematigd (Friedlander et al. 2021).

American Psychological Association (2006). American psychological association presidential task force on evidence based practice. Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271.CrossRef

Bager-Charleson, S., & McBeath, A. (2020). Enjoying research in counselling and psychotherapy: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research (1e druk.). (pag. 1). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55127-8.CrossRef

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps towards an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. Chandler.

Beltz, A. M., Wright, A. G., Sprague, B. N., & Molenaar, P. C. (2016). Bridging the nomothetic and idiographic approaches to the analysis of clinical data. Assessment, 23(4), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116648209.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bertalanffy, L. von (1950). An outline of general system theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1, 134–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/i.2.134.CrossRef

Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General system theory. band 41973. George Braziller.

Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: an introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford.

Borcsa, M., Hanks, H., & Vetere, A. (2013). The development of family therapy and systemic practice in Europe: some reflections and concerns. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(2), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9266-2.CrossRef

Breunlin, D. C. (1999). Toward a theory of constraints. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(3), 365–382.CrossRefPubMed

Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x.CrossRef

Carr, A. (2010). Ten research questions for family therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1375/anft.31.2.119.CrossRef

Carr, A. (2013). Development of family therapy in Ireland. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9240-z.CrossRef

Castonguay, L. G., & Muran, J. C. (2015). Fostering collaboration between researchers and clinicians through building practice-oriented research: an introduction. Psychotherapy Research, 25(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.966348.CrossRefPubMed

Dallos, R., & Urry, A. (1999). Abandoning our parents and grandparents: does social construction mean the end of systemic family therapy? Journal of Family Therapy, 21(2), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00112.CrossRef

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: the discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x.CrossRef

Fielding, N. G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437101.CrossRef

Finlay, L. (1998). Reflexivity: an essential component for all research? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(10), 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802269806101005.CrossRef

Finlay, L. (2003). The reflexive journey: mapping multiple routes. In L. Finlay & B. Gough (red.), Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences (pag. 3–20). Blackwell Publishing.CrossRef

Friedlander, M., Heatherington, L., & Diamond, G. (2021). Systemic and conjoint couple and family therapies: recent advances and future promise. In M. Barkham, W. Lutz & L. G. Castonguay (red.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pag. 539–581). Wiley.

Hoffman, L. (1985). Beyond power and control: toward a “second order” family systems therapy. Family Systems Medicine, 3(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0089674.CrossRef

Hoffman, L. (1993). Exchanging voices: a collaborative approach to family therapy. Routledge.

Howe, R., & Von Foerster, H. (1974). Cybernetics at Illinois. Forum, 6, 15–17.

Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: a rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4), e12735. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735.CrossRef

Józefik, B., Barbaro, B., Iniewicz, G., & Namysłowska, I. (2013). Family therapy in Poland: development and current perspectives. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(2), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9257-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2020). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford.

Kivlighan Jr., D. M. (2021). From where is the group? To what is the group?: Contributions of actor-partner interdependence modeling. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(3), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000164.CrossRef

Kivlighan Jr., D. M., Hill, C. E., Gelso, C. J., & Baumann, E. (2016). Working alliance, real relationship, session quality, and client improvement in psychodynamic psychotherapy: A longitudinal actor partner interdependence model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000134.CrossRefPubMed

Lebow, J. (2014). The empirical base: science and practice. In J. Lebow (red.), Couple and family therapy: an integrative map of the territory (pag. 55–85). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14255-003.

Lebow, J. L. (2017). The multidisciplinary world of couple and family therapy and family science. Family Process, 56(4), 795–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12324.CrossRefPubMed

Lee, S. H., Chun, Y. J., Chung, H., Shin, S. I., Lee, I., Lee, D. S., & Choi, Y. S. (2013). The profession of family therapy in South Korea: Current status and future directions. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(2), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9270-6.CrossRef

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S., & Guba, E. G. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (red.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (5e druk. pag. 108–150). SAGE.

Lini, C., & Bertrando, P. (2022). Positional responsibility in systemic-dialogicaltherapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 44(3), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12390.CrossRef

Lorås, L., & Sundelin, J. (2018). The multi-epistemological systemic therapist: a qualitative study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 39(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1335.CrossRef

Lyness, K. P. (2020). Training and credentialing in the profession of marriage and family therapy. In K. S. Wampler & L. M. McWey (red.), Handbook of systemic family therapy (pag. 555–575). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119438519.CrossRef

Maarouf, H. (2019). Pragmatism as a supportive paradigm for the mixed research approach: conceptualizing the ontological, epistemological, and axiological stances of pragmatism. International Business Research, 12(9), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n9p1.CrossRef

Marcus, E. R. (1999). Modern ego psychology. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 47(3), 843–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/00030651990470031501.CrossRefPubMed

Minuchin, S. (1982). Reflections on boundaries. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 655–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01455.x.CrossRefPubMed

Moloney, B. (2013). Reflections on family therapy in Australia. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(2), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9272-4.CrossRef

Nightingale, A. (2003). A feminist in the forest: situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME: An International E‑Journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), 77–90.

Norcross, J. C., Pfund, R. A., & Prochaska, J. O. (2013). Psychotherapy in 2022: a Delphi poll on its future. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(5), 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034633.CrossRef

Northey, W. F. (2009). The legitimization of marriage and family therapy in the United States: implications for international recognition. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 20(4), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975350903366253.CrossRef

Oddli, H. W., & Kjos, P. (2021). Integrasjon i psykoterapi. In P. E. Binder, L. Loras & F. Thuen (red.), Håndbok I individualterapi (pag. 163–178). Fagbokforlaget.

Patomäki, H., & Wight, C. (2000). After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00156.CrossRef

Pinsof, W. M. (1995). Integrative problem-centered therapy: a synthesis of family, individual, and biological therapies. Basic Books.

Pinsof, W.M., & Lebow, J.L. (2005). A scientific paradigm for family psychology. In W. M. Pinsof & J. L. Lebow (red.), Family psychology: the art of the science (pag. 3–19). Oxford University Press.

Pinsof, W. M., Breunlin, D. C., Russell, W. P., Lebow, J. L., Rampage, C., & Chambers, A. L. (2018). The integrative systemic therapy approach to working with families. American Psychological Association.CrossRef

Pocock, D. (2015). A philosophy of practice for systemic psychotherapy: the case for critical realism. Journal of Family Therapy, 37(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12027.CrossRef

Price, L., & Martin, L. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: applied critical realism in the social sciences. Journal of Critical Realism, 17(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2018.1468148.CrossRef

Priest, J. B. (2021). Science of family systems theory. Routledge.CrossRef

Raimy, V. C. (1950). Training in clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall.

Relvas, A., Alarcao, M., & Pereira, M. (2013). Family and systems therapy and training in Portugal. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(2), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591013-9255-5.CrossRef

Schiepek, G. (2020). Contributions of systemic research to the development of psychotherapy. In M. Ochs, M. Borcsa & J. Schweitzer (red.), Systemic research in individual, couple, and family therapy and counseling (pag. 11–38). Springer.CrossRef

Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077.CrossRef

Stokkebekk, J. (2022). Navigating prolonged conflict: subject positions and meaning constructions in postdivorce families. University of Bergen. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2996343

Stokkebekk, J., Iversen, A. C., Hollekim, R., & Ness, O. (2019). “Keeping balance”, “keeping distance” and “keeping on with life”: child positions in divorced families with prolonged conflicts. Children and Youth Services Review, 102, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.04.021.CrossRef

Stokkebekk, J., Iversen, A., Hollekim, R., & Ness, O. (2021). “The troublesome other and I”: parallel stories of separated parents in prolonged conflicts. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 47(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12474.CrossRefPubMed

Stokkebekk, J., Törrönen, J., Emery, R. E., Iversen, A. C., & Hollekim, R. (2022). The heroic savior, the jungle guide and the beacon amidst a fog of uncertainty: agency of fathers in prolonged postdivorce conflicts and their positioning of children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 63(7–8), 526–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2023.2175556.CrossRef

Stricker, G., & Trierweiler, S. J. (1995). The local clinical scientist: a bridge between science and practice. American Psychologist, 50, 995–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.50.12.995.CrossRefPubMed

Tilden, T., & Wampold, B. E. (red.). (2017). Routine outcome monitoring in couple and family therapy: the empirically informed therapist. Springer.

Tilden, T., Solem, M. B., Thuen, F., Loras, L., Stokkebekk, J., & Whittaker, K. (2022). A ta empirien pa alvor v. 2.0. Fokus på Familien, 50(4), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.18261/fokus.50.4.5.CrossRef

Wagenaar, K., & Baars, J. (2012). Family and family therapy in The Netherlands. International Review of Psychiatry, 24(2), 144–148. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2012.656301.CrossRefPubMed

Walsh, F. (2016). Applying a family resilience framework in training, practice, and research: mastering the art of the possible. Family Process, 55(4), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12260.CrossRefPubMed

Wampler, K. S., & McWey, L. M. (2020). The handbook of systemic family therapy. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119438519.CrossRef

Wampler, K. S., & Patterson, J. E. (2020). The importance of family and the role of systemic family therapy. In K. S. Wampler, R. B. Miller, R. B. Seedall, L. M. McWey, A. J. Blow, M. Rastogi & R. Singh (red.), The handbook of systemic family therapy (pag. 1–32). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119790181.ch1.CrossRef

Welter-Enderlin, R. (2005). The state of the art of training in systemic family therapy in Switzerland. Family Process, 44(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00061.x.CrossRefPubMed

Whittaker, K. J., Johnson, S. U., Solbakken, O. A., Wampold, B., & Tilden, T. (2021). Childhood trauma as a predictor of change in couple and family therapy: a study of treatment response. Couple and Family Psychology:Research and Practice, 12, 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000181.CrossRef

Whittaker, K. J., Johnson, S. U., Solbakken, O. A., & Tilden, T. (2022a). Treated together–changed together: the application of dyadic analyses to understand the reciprocal nature of alliances and couple satisfaction over time. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48(4), 1226–1241. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12595.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Whittaker, K. J., Stänicke, E., Johnson, S. U., Solbakken, O. A., & Tilden, T. (2022b). Troubled relationships: a retrospective study of how couples with histories of trauma experience therapy. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 22(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2022.2053262.CrossRef

Wiener, N., & Neumann, J. von (1949). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Physics Today, 2(5), 33–34. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3066516.CrossRef

Titel: Onderzoeken wat we doen – het paradigma van systemisch gezinsonderzoek: deel 2
Auteurs: Kristoffer Whittaker
Jan Stokkebekk
Lennart Lorås
Terje Tilden
Publicatiedatum: 15-05-2024
Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Gepubliceerd in: Gezinstherapie Wereldwijd / Uitgave 2/2024
Print ISSN: 1566-0206
Elektronisch ISSN: 1876-5874
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12440-024-00224-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Samenvatting

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2024

Een ultrakorte systemische interventie voor de behandeling van psychische gezondheidssymptomen bij kinderen

Gezinsgerichte preventie voor het bevorderen van proactief opvoeden en ouderlijke zelfeffectiviteit aan het begin van de basisschool

Wat ouders willen van een diagnostisch rapport over autisme: een onderzoek met interviews bij ouders die binnenkomen bij een diagnostisch centrum voor neurobiologische ontwikkelingsstoornissen

Kenmerken van burn-out bij ouders en de gezinscontext: een temporele netwerkbenadering bij moeders

Ten geleide

Onderzoeken wat we doen – het paradigma van systemisch gezinsonderzoek: deel 1