write 1 article critiques on family therapy, family systems, couples counseling, marriage counseling, or family counseling.
Article Critique on Family Therapy
Carolyn Tatar and Helen Pote in 2019 compiled an extensive article that covers the weaknesses and strengths of family therapy. This article was first published on the 22nd of October in the journal of family therapy. This article acknowledges that strength and cooperation are lasting themes in the systemic practice of family therapy. To that effect, the article on family process and family therapy ought to be brought together and combined with appreciating a few of the most popular systemic practice articles. In collaboration, this great article critique has been compiled on family therapy. On that note, this very first of its kind outcome of two separate publications hopefully seek to trigger collaborations in the future. This article critique reflects upon the successes and some of the shortcomings of family therapists as they were serving over the years.
The first and most important step in the family therapy process is understanding and engaging the families involved. The article under review in this section is a piece initially developed during the 1980s. This article stresses the effect of premature relationships and how the members of the family are attached, and the therapy offered to the members of that family. This particular practice laid emphasis on engagement by Andy Treacher and John Carpenter (1983) and the extra hypothetical piece by John Byng-Hall (1985). All these articles emphasized that it was imperative to begin from stable foundations.
In family therapy, illness in the family setup is a major concern. The multiplicity of systemic run-through backgrounds both in the United Kingdom and America is covered in the sector of this article compiled by Rolland (1987) and McFarlane (2016). Themes majorly covered in this article section include; operating with systems affected by sickness, schizophrenia, and certain eating disorders have been crucial in the article critique.
With the constant evolution in family therapy, therapists have come up with new methods of operation, asking questions, and the immediate result of these changes has been established norms in practice. Therapists need to embrace serious self-reflective notes which seem to challenge the current theory and method of practice has been crucial during the entire account within the article. This proves that the systemic arena has upheld its ethics when it comes to practice and relevance. For that reason, I recognize the efforts of authors such as Tom Anderson (1987), Virginia Goldner (1985), Steve de Shazer (1986) and Karl Tomm (1987), who backed and probed the originally established problem-focused contexts. The systemic models have, over time, been flexible and robust to incorporate these external and internal changes.
The most noticeable paradigm change in the article is the extension of the thoughtfulness given to the modern representations and the field and a movement to second-order automation. The induction of these intricate models as established by Goolishian and Anderson (1988) as well as by Hare-Mustin (1994) changed the way people used to think moving from the idea of a functional household unit to one that indulges conflicting narratives within the household and the society. This development was significant in broadening the systemic practice. It also ensured that it paid close attention to the therapist-client relationship’s power and culture. Maintaining respect to household therapy history has established itself as a focal point of teaching first-hand therapists and medical practitioners, who I recognize by including an article compiled by Isrealstam in 1988.
Culture and family therapy are somehow intertwined. Through the historical account of Falicov and Cardona et al, (1995) culture has been examined to shape the life of a client and the practice of practitioners as well as associated research. Attaining cultural sensitivity is a constantly evolving job to which the above-mentioned authors have greatly contributed. It is important to note that these evolutions are still progressive. To that effect, it is imperative to ensure that the article’s choice of papers in the near future, reviewers, and authors possess diversity and breadth to maintain this important stance.for generalizing the study’s findings.
Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27(4), 371-393.
Byng-Hall, J. (1985). The family script: a useful bridge between theory and practice. Journal of family therapy
Carpenter, J., & Treacher, A. (1983). On the neglected but related arts of convening and engaging families and their wider systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 5(3), 337-358.
de Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., & et al. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25(2), 207-22.
Andersen, T. (1987). The Reflecting Team: Dialogue and Meta-Dialogue in Clinical Work. Family Process, 26(4), 415-428.
Falicov, C. J. (1995). Training to think culturally: A multidimensional comparative framework. Family Process, 34(4), 373-388.
Goldner, V. (1985). Feminism and family therapy. Family Process, 24(1), 31-47.
Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1994). Discourses in the mirrored room: A post-modern analysis of therapy. Family Process, 33(1), 19-35.
Israelstam, K. (1988). Contrasting four major family therapy paradigms: implications for family therapy training. Journal of Family Therapy, 10(2), 179-196.
McFarlane, W. R. (2016). Family Interventions for Schizophrenia and the Psychoses: A Review. Family Process, 55(3), 460-482.
Parra Cardona, J. R., Domenech-Rodriguez, M., Forgatch, M., Sullivan, C., Bybee, D., Holtrop, K., . . . Bernal, G. (2012). Culturally Adapting an Evidence-Based