A Bird's eye view of SF in Malmo

Add a Comment

Comment by Hans-Peter Korn on June 7, 2010 at 12:49

Yes, very interesting .... and similar to discussions in the "agile management" - field, which also is seen to be driven by "experience" and a "set of techniques" only .... and not based on a specific "theory of management" with an "academic reputation".
On the other hand "agile management" in our days is more an more accepted by a lot of managers because it is driven by "experience" and a "set of techniques" and not based on a "academic theory of management".

So: considering, that academic science is more a "reconstruction" of those theories and theory-based practices which are following the traditions and mind sets of the existing academic sciences and not in first instance a source for mind-blowing innovations my thought is:

What is the benefit for SF to become also one of those "academic reconstructions"?

Comment by Mark McKergow on June 7, 2010 at 8:44

Hi Eva and Stanus,

Very interesting discussion here. I used to think that the 'theory of no theory' was a great idea, like the 'paradigm of no paradigm'. I have revised my opinion - I now think it's a cop-out. I agree with Eva that the paradigm in which SF sits is not the same kind of paradigm as CBT etc. However, there IS definitely a sense in which one knows SF practice when one sees it, and there IS surely a framework in which the techniques of SF make good sense (otherwise we wouldn't do them). I have been in discussion with Jerry McLaughlin at Univ W Michigan - he teaches SF and many other models as part of a counselling dept. He and I both think that one of the reasons why SF has not caught on in a much bigger way is that it is taught as technique, without paradigm. People are thinking the same way as when they so CBT when they ask questions, and so respond differently - and the approach doesn't seem as effective. SImply because a paradigm has post-modern aspects doesn't mean we simply have to throw up our hands and cry 'too hard'!

Comment by Eva Golding on June 7, 2010 at 0:58

Hi Stanus,
In this case, the 'paradigm of no paradigm' can be the SF paradigm.

Comment by Stanus Cloete on June 6, 2010 at 19:40

Hi Eva,
Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this debate. It is enlightening and contributes to my learning.
I agree with you that SF is embedded with the characteristics of post-modernism. This is most probably why there seems to be not much enthusiasm for formulating a paradigm for SF. And I agree with you on the fact that a paradigm cannot be planned in advance, it emerges from practice as an epistemological stance. I most definitely agree with you that a paradigm “can only be understood and appreciated in the context it originally acquired its meaning, therefore it also subjects to shift and change according to the inevitable change of the socio-political arena in society. In other words, whilst we think how we work is based on a given paradigm; however there is always a gradual and subtle shift of this paradigm we have faith in.” In Malmö I said that at the moment we formulate a paradigm it has most probably shifted already. Gale Miller said that to formulate a paradigm can be like catching air in a bag. I also believe that SF has grown since the eighties and hopefully will keep on growing.
What attracted me to SF in the first place is that it was developed inductively and not theory driven. Being a theory without theory however is a theory in itself. And in the same sense I think that a ‘paradigm of no paradigm’ is a paradigm in itself. As Gale Miller and Mark McKergow said in Malmö: SF has a paradigm, an ‘It.’ The question is what is ‘It’? I think that it is important to find an answer to this question. The ‘It’ has to be researched and formulated however tentatively. Without this paradigm the academic world will not take note of us. Without the ‘It” it becomes difficult for SF to have an identity of its own. And SF has so much to offer to the world. Should we be satisfied with where we are at this point in time and let the results of SF practice speak for itself? Personally I would like to see more. Or am I searching for the impossible?

Comment by Eva Golding on June 6, 2010 at 14:52

Hi Stanus,

I had to dig out my past work and re-familiarise myself with this very interesting topic, my view and understanding of the topic is as follows:

It is exactly the paradigmatic differences that distinguish one paradigm from another. The medical model traditionally view problem as positivistic that needs to be identified before solution/cure can be administered. As for the so-called post-modern one which is characterised by the post-modern trend, by which there’s no one authoritative way of knowing and a strong believe of the non-existence of an objective truth. So, the trend can be seen as the shifting away of factionalism and parochialism of the traditional model towards that of dialoguing and rapprochement of the post-modern. Wouldn’t you agree that the SF approach is embedded with characteristics of the later?

Paradigms are emerged rather than planned-out. They emerge from a cultural and historical context through people (i.e. you and me) who work independently from each other, yet simultaneously adopt a similar epistemological stance that reflects the similar values and beliefs we have for our individual practices. Eventually and gradually, a particular paradigm emerges out of this silent ‘movement’.

As any paradigm can only be understood and appreciated in the context it originally acquired its meaning, therefore it also subjects to shift and change according to the inevitable change of the socio-political arena in society. In other words, whilst we think how we work is based on a given paradigm, however there is always a gradual and subtle shift of this paradigm we have faith in. You might have realised already, since the early 80s, the practice of the SF approach has been perpetually undergoing a process of shift and change in terms of ideas and methods in response to the ever changing values and beliefs in the society. Consequently, what we have now is a new generation of practitioners who can be thinking and doing things differently from that of the 80s, and it is a good sign.

For the above reasons, a colleague recently mentioned that a ‘paradigm of no paradigm’ is better for our field of work.

Eva

Comment by Stanus Cloete on June 2, 2010 at 8:40

Hi Eva,
Thank you for your comments. Yes, I agree with you about the two approaches of the medical model and the post-modern route. SF, Agile NT, AI and maybe others fall within the post modern route. But what distinguish them from one another? If we use the definition Thomas Kuhn gives to a paradigm then I would like to quote the Wikipedia: “One important aspect of Kuhn's paradigms is that the paradigms are incommensurable, meaning two paradigms cannot be reconciled with each other because they cannot be subjected to the same common standard of comparison. That is, no meaningful comparison between them is possible without fundamental modification of the concepts that are an intrinsic part of the paradigms being compared. This way of looking at the concept of "paradigm" creates a paradox of sorts, since competing paradigms are in fact constantly being measured against each other.” (My italics)
In my mind a SF paradigm therefore needs to be more than this basic difference in approach. Many coaches and therapists use typical solution focused techniques without being SF or even understanding how SF co-construct meaning in the interaction between customer and coach. I think we ourselves as SF coaches and therapists sometimes use words from other fields with worthwhile insights and thereby confuse ourselves. Or do we not? Let me give an example. Is SF strengths based? Some of us would argue yes. Coert Visser initially thought so too. But in 2008 he wrote a blog (http://solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html) on Positive psychology, the strengths movement and the solution-focused approach in which he said he changed his mind. He sees the difference between the strengths movement and the solution-focused approach as:
• Standardization versus ideosyncratism
• Plan+implement versus try+learn
• Applying strengths versus doing what works
This is just to illustrate how important the discussion is on what the paradigm of SF is or should be. I am sure any attempt to formulate it will change over time as SF is a work in progress. We learn from our clients and customers and from other approaches as well. But not to be confused or confusing we should know what the paradigm in the here and now is. At least I am personally in need of this.
Stanus

Comment by Paolo Terni on June 1, 2010 at 20:58

Thanks for posting this summary, Stanus!

Comment by Eva Golding on May 31, 2010 at 17:16

As far as I understand it, I believe there are 2 existing paradigms that practitioners follow. The traditional vs 'postmodern', Psychodynamic, CBT are 2 examples follow the traditional whilst SF and NT etc. adopt the later:

Traditional route (the medical model):
1) Problem-focused -->
2) Accessing problem, which includes investigating into history, determine symptoms, and hypothesis etc. -->... See more
3) Solution-match-problems

Post-modern route:
1) Strengths based -->
2) Collaborative, key words i.e. frame of reference, story, diverse realities etc. --->
3) Language maneuvering....to effect change.

Isoo Kim Berg mentioned this in one of her videos, and Coert Visser conceptualised it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VKjsnfIp60&feature=related