only for the grAde

Journal of Systemic Therapies, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2013, pp. 72–88

72

NARRATIVE AND SOLUTION-FOCUSED
THERAPIES: A TWENTY-YEAR

RETROSPECTIVE

JEFF CHANG
Athabasca University & The Family Psychology Centre

DAVID NYLUND
Sacramento State University

The Therapeutic Conversations (TC 1) Conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1991
was a historic event in the advancement of postmodern therapies. We (David,
a narrative therapist, and Jeff, a solution-focused therapist) were profoundly
affected by this summit of the pioneering voices in narrative, solution-focused,
strategic, and systemic therapy. This article highlights the evolution of both
narrative and solution-focused therapy since TC 1 from our distinct, but over-
lapping vantage points. We have noted the increased differentiation of these
approaches therapies since they were first compared (Chang & Phillips, 1993).
While this differentiation is significant, we note that a hybrid of narrative
and solution-focused therapy is being practiced among new practitioners,
a development that may not have been predicted or hoped for by first and
second-generation narrative and solution-focused therapists. This development
is situated within the current climate of evidence-based practice, the recovery
model of mental health, positive psychology, strength-based approaches, and
the recent emphasis on resilience. Finally, we comment on the perils and pos-
sibilities of current developments and speculate as to what this might mean
for the future of both approaches.

As I (JC) stated in my editor’s introduction, the first Therapeutic Conversations
conference in Tulsa (TC 1) was an inflection point in the culture of psychotherapy.
Therapy became less about delivering pronouncements from behind the mirror, and
more about conversational collaboration. In the years just before the conference,
the therapeutic approach pioneered by Michael White and David Epston, not yet
called narrative therapy (White, 1986a, 1986b, 1987), and the solution-focused
(SF) approach (de Shazer, 1985, 1988, 1991) were becoming more popular. Jeff

Address correspondence to Jeff Chang, Ph.D., R.Psych., Assistant Professor, Graduate, Centre for Ap-
plied Psychology, Athabasca University, Director, The Family Psychology Centre, c/o 2713 14th St.
SW, Calgary, AB Canada T2T 3V2. E-mail: jeffc@athabascau.ca

G4248.indd 72 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies 73

and his colleagues noticed some similarities, working at an adolescent treatment
center, and subsequently described them (Chang & Phillips, 1993) in the TC 1
conference proceedings (Gilligan & Price, 1993). David was working in managed
care and learning about postmodern therapies. He read Jeff and Michele’s chapter
with interest, still encourages students and supervisees to read it, and highlights it
as a key part of his development as a postmodern therapist.

As young practitioners focused on technique, we glossed over the differences be-
tween the approaches, and likely made too much of the superficial similarities—as
de Shazer (1993) suggested, a family resemblance akin to the similarity between
apples and pineapples. In the last two decades, however, narrative and solution-
focused therapies have differentiated themselves significantly. Some differences
we noted 20 years ago (especially the micro/macro distinction) foreshadowed
subsequent developments. Twenty years after TC 1, we think it is timely to re-
contrast and re-compare narrative and solution-focused therapies. After describing
commonalities, we describe key developments in the narrative and solution-focused
therapies. Then, we describe their current status in relation to one another. We
conclude by contextualizing these approaches in light of recent developments in
the field of psychotherapy.1

COMMONALITIES

Postmodern View of Language

Both narrative and solution-focused therapies eschew a modernist view of language,
which presumes that language represents internal mental constructs. Instead, they
operationalize a postmodern view of language, in which language constitutes social
reality. As Shotter (1993, p. 20) observes, in a constitutive view of language, we
“unknowingly ‘shape’ or ‘construct’ between ourselves . . . not only a sense of our
identities, but also a sense of our ‘social worlds.’” Narrative and solution-focused
therapists knowingly shape identities and social worlds through the interview pro-
cess, but differ “about the most helpful way to steer . . . the conversation . . .” (Mills
& Sprenkle, 1995, p. 369).

In keeping with the macro/micro distinction we made in the previous compari-
son (Chang & Phillips, 1993), solution-focused therapists steer the conversation
toward hypothetical solutions, exceptions to the problem, and solution descrip-
tions. Narrative therapists elicit descriptions of a client’s agency in relation to
the problem, and deconstruct the discourses that support the problem. While a
respectful solution-focused therapist would not shut down conversations about
larger cultural constructs, SFT would not go there by default. On the other hand,

1We suggest reading the original comparison chapter. We have refrained from reviewing it in detail
due to space constraints

G4248.indd 73 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

74 Chang and Nylund

a key focus of narrative therapy is examination of the effect of discourses, and
clients’ responses to them.

Nonpathologizing

The family resemblance that we first noticed over twenty years ago, namely that
these approaches focus on what’s going right (Chang & Phillips, 1993), leads both
narrative and solution-focused therapists to position themselves outside of dominant
pathologizing mental health discourse. Simply asking about problem-free times,
exceptions, unique outcomes, and how clients distance themselves from oppressive
cultural stories bypasses pathology. White (1996, personal communication) sug-
gested that we are “swimming in a sea of disrespect” of typical mental health prac-
tices, and that both SFT and narrative offer a corrective. Both approaches sidestep
conversations about pathology in similar linguistic forms, but with different intent.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NARRATIVE COMMUNITY

Power, Gender, Race, Class, and Culture

By the early 1990s, narrative therapy clearly focused on societal issues. Over the
past two decades, Michael White’s practice incorporated his analysis of power
relations, gender, race, class, and sexuality. It was catalyzed by his close relation-
ship with the Just Therapy Team (Waldegrave, 1990) of New Zealand, which has
incorporated culture, gender, class, and economics into their work, eroding the
distinction between clinical work and social advocacy.

Others, particularly women who have woven feminist discourse in their thera-
peutic work, have followed suit. Johnella Bird (2000), for example, explicitly ad-
dresses the power differential between the therapist and the client. Her thoughtful
use of language in therapy developed into “relational externalizing.” In contrast to
traditional externalizing, which refers to the problem as having a life of its own that
must be defeated, relational externalizing invites clients to mindfully examine their
connection to the problem. Traditional externalizing conversations, that encourage
opposing or defeating the problem, are viewed as a relic of masculinist discourse
that can reify a binary—win/lose or control or be controlled. Bird challenges this
masculinist language, encouraging the client to revise her or his relationship to the
problem, eroding the binary, and examining the discursive context of the problem.
Relational externalizing is but one example of the feminist relational approach to
language, self, and therapy. Others (e.g., Weingarten, 1995) have also nudged narrative
therapy toward a more nuanced, feminist-relational stance, particularly with problems
typically seen as gender-related: supporting those who have been sexually assaulted
(Yuen & White, 2002); challenging homo- and transphobia (Tilsen & Nylund, 2010);
helping women to overcome eating disorders (Maisel, Epston, & Borden, 2004); and
attending to gender and power with couples (Freedman & Combs, 2002).

G4248.indd 74 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies 75

Applications to Specific Problems

In addition to its focus on gender, in the last two decades, applications of narrative
therapy to specific problems, populations, and modalities have proliferated: anxiety
disorders (Headman, 2002), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Nylund, 2000),
child protection concerns (Madsen, 2007), group therapy (Weber, Davis, & McPhie,
2006), intimate partner violence (Beres & Nichols, 2010), mediation (Winslade &
Monk, 2000), school problems (Winslade & Monk, 2007), seniors (Osis & Stout,
2001), substance misuse (Gardner & Poole, 2009), trauma (Denborough, 2008),
and young offenders (Tahir, 2005), to name but a few.

Interdisciplinary Cross-Germination

Furthermore, narrative therapy’s maturation has opened dialogue with many disci-
plines informed by postmodern and poststructuralist ideas, including anthropology,
the arts, cultural studies, ethnic studies, literary theory, philosophy, and queer stud-
ies. These connections have further distanced narrative therapy from the ideologi-
cal tenets of psychology. In fact, McLeod (1997) has described narrative therapy
as the only post-psychological therapy. Narrative therapists continue to cultivate
rich relationships with other bodies of thought: Adlerian therapy (Disque & Bitter,
1998), the contemplative tradition (Blanton, 2007), existentialism (Richert, 2010),
hermeneutic philosophy (Huntington, 2001), and neurobiology (Beaudoin & Zim-
merman, 2011), to name but a few.

Community Work

One of the most exciting developments over the past 20 years is the emergence of
narrative approaches toward community work. Recognizing that individual or family
therapy provides incomplete solutions for problems requiring community change,
Cheryl White and David Denborough, among others, have led the way developing
culturally appropriate ways of responding to individual, family, community, and
historical trauma (Denborough, 2008). Their efforts, and others’, helped erode the
artificial distinction between micro and macro practice, a historical tension in social
work, which defined social workers as either clinicians or community develop-
ment workers. To reflect the seamlessness of community and clinical practice, the
International Journal of Narrative Therapy was renamed the International Journal
of Narrative Therapy and Community Work.

Conceptual Frames for Practice

Three particular conceptual frames for practice are worthy of mention. Winslade
(2009) has been operationalizing the ideas of French poststructuralist Gilles De-
leuze. Deleuze follows the general tone of Foucault’s critique of modernity. Like
Foucault, his central concern is with how modern power operates on a micro level

G4248.indd 75 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

76 Chang and Nylund

through normalizing discourses that permeate all aspects of social reality and every-
day life. There are slight differences between Foucault and Deleuze and their analy-
sis of modern power; Deleuze focuses much more on desire. Foucault’s emphasis is
on the disciplinary technologies of modernity and the targeting of the body within
regimes of power/knowledge. Deleuze’s attention is on the colonization of desire
by various modern discourse and institutions. Winslade uses Deleuze’s concept of
‘‘lines of flight’’—“shifts in the trajectory of a narrative that escape a [constraining]
line of force [desire] or power” (p. 337). Narrative therapy can therefore be seen
as the process of developing new lines of flight.

Secondly, White (2007), in his final book before his death, utilizes Vygotsky’s
“zone of proximal development”—the difference between what a learner can do
without help and what he or she can do with help—to create a map for narrative
practice. Vygotsky’s social developmental theory invited White to think of therapy
as a series of scaffolding conversations—bridging a client’s zone of proximal de-
velopment to enact a new response to the problem.

Third is the concept of the absent but implicit (Carey, Walther, & Russell, 2009).
White suggested that experience is multilayered—there are both explicit and im-
plicit layers. For clients, the explicit is typically their experience of the problem.
Conversely, the implicit—preferences, values, hopes, intentions, and dreams—have
unspoken meaning, providing a contrasting background to the problem. White pro-
vided a map for scaffolding conversations to elicit the absent but implicit, aspects
of client identity and experience that lie beyond the problem story.

Reflecting Team, Outsider Witnessing, and Definitional
Ceremony Practices

The practice of having an observing team exchange physical locations with the
client and therapist to offer reflections, and exchange places again for the therapist
and client to discuss the team’s reflections, initially known as the reflecting team
(RT), was originated by Tom Andersen (1987). Andersen, influenced by social
constructionist and hermeneutic ideas, would not have identified himself as a nar-
rative therapist. While RTs have been adopted by practitioners of diverse theoretical
orientations, the plurality of published accounts are by narrative therapists (see
Chang, 2010a, for a comprehensive review). White (2000) commented:

Although there are similarities in the structure of the reflecting-team work that is prac-
ticed from place to place, [there is] no uniform approach . . . [or] consensus [about]
the mechanism at work . . . in relation to its frequently transformative effects. (p. 71)

Along the same lines, Jeff has suggested that the RT is “a technique in search of
a theory” (Chang, 2010a, p. 39). Nonetheless, we agree that the RT is now best
known as a narrative practice.

The RT format has lent itself to a conceptual framing as definitional ceremony
as proposed by Myerhoff (1986). As therapeutic practice (Carey & Russell, 2003),

G4248.indd 76 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies 77

definitional ceremonies viewed by outsider witness groups are intended to refashion
identity in a public and communal, as opposed to a private and individual, way.
They consist of a “multi-layered tellings of the stories of people’s lives” (White,
2005, p. 15), usually structured as a telling by the therapist and client, a retelling
of tellings by the team, and a retelling of retellings by the therapist and client.

Narrative Therapy and Evidence-Based Practice

In 2001, we presented together at the Pan-Pacific Brief Psychotherapy Conference
in Osaka, Japan, highlighting the similarities and differences in our approaches
(Nylund & Chang, 2001). Our discussant, the former president of the Japan Be-
havior Therapy Society, asked our positions on evidence-based practice (EBP).
David replied:

I believe in evidence, but I am more interested in what constitutes evidence, and who
gets to decide what counts as evidence. Is it professionals, licensing boards, research-
ers, and journal editors? Or is it clients? If a young person is able to reclaim his life
from ADHD, for example, and we create and circulate a therapeutic letter about his
experience, I consider that just as compelling as a randomized clinical trial.

Jeff was left wishing he had said something as insightful.
This exchange reflects a key dilemma for narrative therapists—the predominantly

North American need for empirical support for therapy, versus narrative therapists’
historical opposition to the empirical approaches that quantify lived experience,
specify normality, and dis-member persons. Depending on one’s perspective, nar-
rative therapy has been slow to come to the EBP table, or has put up principled
resistance to the pressure to sell out.

Notwithstanding this double bind, there is a developing kernel of empirical
support for narrative therapy. Vromans and Schweitzer’s (2011) study of major
depressive disorder and Besa’s (1994) research on parent-child conflict, are two
examples. Whether engaging in quantitative research amounts to surrendering
key values, or is a viable strategy to earn a seat at the evidence-based table, we
believe it is not sufficient for the narrative community to throw out the evidence-
based baby with the ideological bathwater (see Parker, 2004). Instead, postmodern
therapists and researchers must tackle the need for empirical support on its own
terms (see Strong & Gale, 2013), while continuing to critique logical-positivist
science.

In the post-Michael White era, narrative therapy is rapidly growing in many
areas of the globe. Therapists and graduate students are thirsty for narrative therapy
training in spite (or because) of the trend in psychotherapy towards pathologizing
practices. Most graduate programs include narrative therapy in their curricula and
many agencies have incorporated narrative ideas in their work. Two decades later,
narrative therapy is vital and evolving.

G4248.indd 77 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

78 Chang and Nylund

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SOLUTION-FOCUSED COMMUNITY

Solution-Building Orientation

Solution-focused ideas have been applied to a myriad of populations and clinical
problems (see Connie & Metcalf, 2009; de Jong & Berg, 2008; Miller, Hubble, &
Duncan, 1996, Nelson & Thomas, 2007; Pichot & Dolan, 2003 for illustrations of
the breadth of applications). However, in our view, the most crucial development
has been the clear shift to a solution-building orientation. By 1988, de Shazer and
colleagues were distinguishing SFT from the brief strategic model (Watzlawick,
Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). Rather than seeking to develop solutions based on
problem characteristics (de Shazer, 1985), de Shazer (1988) and colleagues had
concluded that it is not necessary to know anything about a problem to build
solutions. How clients described exceptions (presence or absence; random or in-
tentional) came to be much more important than anything to do with the problem
itself. This assumption underlay all de Shazer’s subsequent writing, as he expanded
his exploration of how language operates in therapy, primarily via the influence of
continental philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein as Intellectual Foundation

From around the time of TC 1 until his death, de Shazer connected his work with
Wittgenstein’s (de Shazer, 1991, 1994; de Shazer et al., 2007). De Shazer maintained
“that SFBT is a practice or activity that is without an underlying (grand) theory” (de
Shazer et al., 2007, p. 101). Wittgenstein asserted that “[t]he classifications made by
philosophers and psychologists are like those who would try to classify clouds by
their shape” (Wittgenstein, 1953, p. 154). He instead suggests that it is more useful to
simply observe how language is used in everyday life. Similarly, de Shazer observes
that theories of psychotherapy “[tell] us how things must be or should be rather
than . . . describing how things are. Describing and teaching SFBT . . . demands that
we focus on how things are. . . .” (de Shazer et al., 2007, p. 167).

Wittgenstein holds that the meaning of words is not inherent, but resides in the
context of their everyday use—the “language games” in which we engage. Doing
therapy is one particular language game. Within a game, the same word can have dif-
ferent meanings. Take, for example, the word game itself. While games of basketball,
poker, solitaire, and peak-a-boo have some similarities, they have more differences,
and the word “game” is used to signify them all (de Shazer, 1991). Despite their
differences, through what Wittgenstein calls a family resemblance, we recognize
them all as games. Furthermore, in one’s private world, “inner processes [are] hid-
den from view, cannot be known, even by oneself, outside of the pubic and social
context in which they arise” (de Shazer et al., 2007, p. 145). This is known as the
private language proposition.

Wittgenstein has several implications for therapeutic practice. Wittgenstein’s
private language argument supports therapeutic practices such as scaling ques-

G4248.indd 78 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies 79

tions and relationship questions, which connect private experiences to the home
base (de Shazer et al., 2007, p. 146) of everyday life. Furthermore, the opacity of
personal experience blurs the distinction between affect, behavior, and cognition,
since private experience can only be understood via external signifiers. And so the
common idea that affect or cognition somehow propel behavior gives way to the
belief that strands of experience cannot be disentwined. Accordingly, questions in
SFT are used to elicit external signifiers of internal experience—usually descriptions
of what the client wants, or when solutions are occurring. Contrary to the claim
that SFT ignores emotion (Lipchik, 1999), de Shazer would assert that SFT views
emotions not as something that drives behavior, but as part of clients’ experience
that can only be clarified by discussing external signifiers.

Minimalism

De Shazer (personal communication, 1992) known as “the man with Ockham’s
razor,” stated that brief therapy lasts “as long as it takes to solve the problem and
not one session longer.” The Brief Therapy Practice of London, England (BRIEF)
has striven to push the limits of minimalism in therapeutic practice. As Iveson stated
recently, their efforts to be brief are in the spirit of “. . . Steve de Shazer’s idea of
constantly looking to see what’s necessary. What seems necessary at one point may
not seem necessary later on” (McKergow & Glass, 2008, p. 126). For example,
about the need to assign homework tasks, the BRIEF team found:

. . . it didn’t seem to matter if people did their tasks or not. So we stopped giving tasks.
Actually this added something to the interview—we didn’t have to be thinking about
what task to give, so we had more scope to listen to the client. If you watch . . . de
Shazer’s interviews you will see a time when he starts thinking about the task. . . . So
when you are not having to think about tasks, you can listen for other things, like
preferred future descriptions. . . . (McKergow & Glass, 2008, p. 126)

Iveson describes another innovation to make therapy briefer yet:

We have worked very hard at trying to take away our intentionality—to be neutral about
what our clients do. . . . So we stick with getting descriptions of what things would look
like if. . . . Not . . . concerned about how they might actually happen. Stopping trying
to help them get from A to B and focusing on describing A and B—where you want
to get to and what you’ve already done without any hint about what you need to do
about it. This has contributed to a reduction in our average number of sessions. (p. 126)

Movement Toward Empirically Supported Status

The SF community has made strides toward empirically supported status on three
fronts. First, both the Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Association (Trepper et al.,
2012) and the European Brief Therapy Association (Beyerbach, 2000) have devel-
oped standardized treatment manuals. Secondly, measures have been developed to

G4248.indd 79 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

80 Chang and Nylund

measure treatment fidelity (Lehmann & Patton, 2012) and solution behavior (Smock
2012), and other measures of solution behavior have been reviewed (Smock, Mc-
Collum, & Stevenson, 2010). Third, many well-controlled outcome studies are now
available (see Franklin, Trepper, Gingerich, & McCollum, 2012). The accumulation
of empirical literature on SFT has permitted two meta-analyses (Kim, 2008; Stams,
Dekovic, Buist, & de Vries, 2006), both of which indicate that SFT is as effective
as other treatments, with the potential advantage of being briefer (Stams, Dekovic,
Buist, & de Vries, 2006). The US Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-
vention designated SFT as a promising intervention for the prevention of school
drop-out (Kim, Smock, Trepper, McCollum, & Franklin, 2010).

Microanalysis of Conversation

Recently, solution-focused therapists become attracted to the qualitative research
methodology pioneered by Janet Beavin Bavelas at the University of Victoria (Can-
ada), which focuses on moment-by-moment verbal and nonverbal communication
(Tomori & Bavelas, 2007). This approach to research describes the effect of specific
verbal strategies in shaping the therapeutic conversation, and whether the effect
is consistent or discrepant with the therapist’s espoused intent. Such conversation
analysis, coupled with outcome research, can potentially improve the viability and
quality of solution-focused practice.

Common Factors

Although the common factors of effective therapy are well-known (Duncan, Miller,
& Sparks, 2004), the best known recent proponents of the common factors approach,
Scott Miller and Barry Duncan, have roots in SFT (Berg & Miller, 1992; Miller,
Hubble, & Duncan, 1996). Distancing themselves from SFT (Duncan, Miller, &
Hubble, 1997), they and their colleagues have called the field to attend to what works
across models. We have both incorporated much of the common factors thinking
into our work. I (JC) can’t help but think that my SFT training rendered me more
open to this influence. Solution-focused therapists listen for pre- or extratherapeutic
change, and therefore utilize instances of change unconnected with therapy. SFT
has a simple way to attend to clients’ motivation for tasks, a key part of the working
alliance—the conceptualizations of visiting, complaining, and customer relation-
ship patterns. Eliciting what clients want, and what they are already doing to get
what they want, is likely to call forth hope and positive expectation. Because SF
techniques (mainly questions) respond to client realities, desire, and solutions, not
what therapists think they should do, SF techniques are less likely to be rejected by
the client. Competent SF therapists may be better able to potentiate the common
factors than those who conceptualize pathology from a specific theory of human
functioning—SF therapists have less to unlearn. We suggest that their immersion

G4248.indd 80 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies 81

in SFT went a long way toward creating a context for the later developments in
Miller’s and Duncan’s thinking.

CURRENT STATUS

Both solution-focused and narrative therapies have evolved considerably since
they were first systematically compared (Chang & Phillips, 1993). We have both
maintained connections in the narrative and solution-focused communities, as
scholar-practitioner faculty in social work (DN) and counselling psychology (JC).
From multiple vantage points, we suggest these approaches are both less differen-
tiated from one another within our respective disciplines, and more differentiated
from one another when viewed from each community.

Less Differentiation

In the past 20 years, narrative and solution-focused therapies have become a regular
part of graduate curriculum in social work, marriage and family therapy, counsel-
ling, and psychology, becoming mainstream and losing much of their outsider
status. Jeff developed and delivered the first graduate credit courses in narrative
and solution-focused therapies in Canada in the mid-1990s. Counselling theory
textbooks have tended to aggregated them as postmodern approaches. While they
share a postmodern view of language, lumping them together obscures some im-
portant theoretical and procedural differences.

While pathology-based thinking dominates psychotherapy education, alterna-
tive philosophies, like the Recovery Model, the strengths perspective, the current
focus on resilience, and Positive Psychology, which emphasize client resources and
solutions, have emerged. Some have suggested that these approaches bear some
similarity to narrative and solution-focused approaches (Caslor & Cyr, 2011).
The mental health Recovery Model is an outgrowth of the recovery movement,
a grassroots initiative that aims to place primary control of care in the hands of
mental health consumers (Jacobson & Greenley, 2001). More a philosophy than
an approach, the Recovery Model focuses on strengths and empowerment, and
easily accommodates narrative and solution-focused values of focusing on posi-
tive changes, empowerment, non-expertise, collaboration, and hope. The strengths
perspective is gaining a foothold in social work education (Saleebey, 2003). It
is founded on: fostering hope based on historical successes; harnessing clients’
resources; reducing stigmatizing language; and flattening the hierarchy between
the client and therapist. Resilience literature describes factors that protect, or at
least mitigate, the effects of adverse influences on individuals and families (Walsh,
1996). Positive Psychology is “is the scientific study of well-being, of what allows
individuals and communities live fully” (Tarragona, 2010). Rather than focusing on

G4248.indd 81 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

82 Chang and Nylund

pathology and dysfunction, positive psychology emphasizes optimal experience,
happiness, resilience, personal strengths, goals, and values, focusing on three cen-
tral concerns: positive emotions, positive individual traits, and positive institutions
(Positive Psychology Center, 2007). While originating from different intellectual
traditions, these four approaches seem able to accommodate therapeutic practices
from solution-focused and narrative therapies. On the other hand, both White and
de Shazer disavowed the idea that they are looking for strengths that reside within
an individual, for this would logically require us to locate deficits within individu-
als as well (Bannink, 2010; Chang et al., 2013). Although we are heartened by this
trend of focusing on adaptive behaviors and strengths, we suggest that conflating
these traditions under the strength-focused banner can result in poorly articulated
practice, and that important distinctives of the solution-focused and narrative ap-
proaches may be obscured.

More Differentiation

Conversely, from within the narrative and solution-focused communities, these
therapies are more differentiated than 20 years ago. At TC 1, these approaches were
still relatively new. Narrative therapy had only been labeled as such the year before
(White & Epston, 1990). Two decades of theoretical and clinical development have
clarified the differences. While we (Chang & Phillips, 1993) overinterpreted the
similarities in questioning practices as reflecting theoretical similarity, we now
see the practice of deconstruction—the process of uncovering the cultural patterns
that maintain problems—as a central technical and theoretical difference. While
solution-focused therapists would not object to a discussion about these issues, they
would be unlikely to initiate them (Chang et al., 2013). The use of deconstruction
questions is emblematic of the broader cultural and social justice emphasis of the
narrative approach—the macro side of the micro/macro distinction.

Both of us have heard some second generation teachers of narrative and solution-
focused approaches suggest that their respective orientations should be kept pure.
In their obligation to preserve a tradition, they believe it is necessary to keep these
models from being contaminated. From David’s perspective as a cultural stud-
ies scholar (Nylund, 2007), and Jeff’s vantage point as a hermeneutic researcher
(Chang, 2010b), this makes no sense for several reasons. First, ignoring cultural
and contextual influences on our approaches to therapy keeps them frozen in time.
It reminds Jeff a bit of being asked to evaluate whether Chinese food from a par-
ticular restaurant is authentic, as if authenticity is inherent to the particular dish.
Secondly, it ignores the fact that neither White nor de Shazer’s thinking remained
static (Miller & de Shazer, 1998). Third, purity implies orthodoxy, which, we infer,
would be antithetical to the thinking of both White and de Shazer. Orthodoxy invites
unfortunate efforts to regulate or police the use of ideas and practices. Finally, the
press to keep an approach pure ignores the frank reality that most therapists, over
the course of their careers, simply do not work that way. Seasoned practitioners

G4248.indd 82 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies 83

broaden their theoretical influences and even incorporate ideas from outside of
psychotherapy (e.g., art, music, philosophy, theater, and literature) to inform their
work (Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1995). Moreover, the common factors literature
(Duncan et al., 2004) suggests that experienced practitioners from different theo-
retical orientations work more similarly than experienced and novice practitioners
espousing the same orientation.

Perhaps a position of theoretical purity is an effective vehicle for novice counsel-
lors to learn the theory and procedure of a particular model of therapy, as long as
they see their chosen model as pragmatically useful, rather than exclusively true
(Amundson, 1996). Furthermore, the field needs some innovators and practitioners
to position themselves as purists to pilot new therapeutic practices and test the limits
of their models. They may be a bit like code monkeys who know all the complexities
of the program they wrote, while the rest of us simply use the software. Without
some innovators, we stand to lose sight of the richness and complexity of the theory
and history of the narrative and solution-focused approaches.

CONCLUSION

From a hermeneutic perspective, we began writing this paper over 20 years ago,
when, driven by technique as young therapists are, we noticed some interesting
similarities in these approaches. Two decades later, we have a different, more
complex interpretive position. We have highlighted some of the developments we
have observed, and described how SFT and narrative therapy have influenced, and
been influenced by trends in psychotherapy such as common factors, EBP, and a
proliferation of approaches that focus on the positive.

I (DN) recently taught a graduate family therapy seminar surveying theoreti-
cal models such as strategic, structural, Bowenian, cognitive-behavioral (CBT),
functional family therapy (FFT), Milan systemic, solution-focused, and narrative
therapy. The final assignment required students to choose a model and apply it
to a case vignette. Half the class selected solution-focused therapy, while the
other picked narrative. Many wanted to combine narrative and solution-focused
therapy in their final project. I was surprised that no one chose the other models
covered in the class. I assumed that some would decide on CBT or FFT given their
current status as evidence based, or opt for one of more traditional approaches
such as strategic or systemic.

This illustrates the ascendance, legitimacy, popularity, and mainstreaming of
solution-focused and narrative therapy. Both models continue to grow and develop
prolifically, albeit divergently. Conversely, while the models are taking different
paths, many practitioners are combining (or muddling?) the two under the larger
umbrella of strength-based and collaborative perspectives—a hybridization of
postmodern therapies. Hence, narrative and solution-focused therapy are taking
on a life of their own, perhaps different than their developers intended. Only

G4248.indd 83 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

84 Chang and Nylund

time will tell what course solution-focused and narrative therapy will take. To
be continued . . .

REFERENCES

Amundson, J. (1996). Why pragmatics is probably enough for now. Family Process, 35,
473–786.

Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work. Family
Process, 26, 415–428.

Bannink, F. (2010, November). How are solution focus and positive psychology linked?
Presentation at the meeting of the Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Association,
Banff, AB.

Beaudoin, M. -N., & Zimmerman, J. (2011). Narrative therapy and interpersonal neurobi-
ology: Revisiting classic practices, developing new emphases. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 30(1), 1–13.

Berg, I. K., & Miller, S. D. (1992). Working with the problem drinker: A solution-focused
approach. New York: W. W. Norton.

Beres, L., & Nichols, M. P. (2010). Narrative therapy group interventions with men who
have used abusive behaviors. Families in Society, 91, 60–66.

Besa, D. (1994). Evaluating narrative family therapy using single-system research designs.
Research on Social Work Practice, 4, 309–325.

Beyerbach, M. (2000). European brief therapy association outcome study: Research defini-
tion. Retrieved November 8, 2011, from http://www.solutionsdoc.co.uk/ebtamain.html

Bird, J. (2000). The heart’s narrative. Auckland: Edge Press.
Blanton, P. G. (2007). Adding silence to stories: Narrative therapy and contemplation. Con-

temporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 29, 211–221.
Carey, M., & Russell, S. (2003). Outsider-witness practices: Some answers to commonly

asked questions. International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work,
1, 12–29.

Carey, M., Walther, S., & Russell, S. (2009). The absent but implicit: A map to support
therapeutic enquiry. Family Process, 48, 319–331.

Caslor, M., & Cyr, B. (2011). Signs of success: A strength-based approach to system-wide
quality improvement. Winnipeg, MB: The Metis & Inuit Child Welfare System in
Manitoba.

Chang, J. (2010a). The reflecting team: A training method for family counselors. Family
Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 18, 36–44.

Chang, J. (2010b). Hermeneutic inquiry: A research approach for postmodern therapists.
Journal of Systemic Therapies, 29(1), 19–32.

Chang, J., Combs, G., Dolan, Y., Freedman, J., Mitchell, T., & Trepper, T. S. (2013). From
Ericksonian roots to postmodern futures. Part II: Shaping the future. Journal of Sys-
temic Therapies, 32(2), 35–45.

Chang, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Michael White and Steve de Shazer: New directions in
family therapy. In S. G. Gilligan & R. Price (Eds.), Therapeutic conversations. New
York: Norton.

Connie, E., & L. Metcalf, L. (Eds.) (2009). The art of solution focused therapy. New York:
Springer.

G4248.indd 84 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies 85

De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2008). Interviewing for solutions. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S. (1993). White and de Shazer: Vive la difference. In S. G. Gilligan & R. Price

(Eds.), Therapeutic conversations. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y., Korman, H., Trepper, T. S., McCollum, E. E., & Berg, I. K. (2007).

More than miracles: The state of the art in solution focused brief therapy. New York:
Haworth Press.

Denborough, D. (2008). Collective narrative practice: Responding to individuals, groups
and communities who have experienced trauma. Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Centre
Publications.

Disque, J. G., & Bitter, J. R. (1998). Integrating narrative therapy with Adlerian lifestyle
assessment: A case study. Journal of Individual Psychology, 54, 431–450.

Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., & Hubble, M. A. (1997). Stepping off the throne: A response
to de Jong and Berg [letter]. Family Therapy Networker, 21, 10.

Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., & Sparks, J. (2004). The heroic client: A revolutionary way to
improve effectiveness with client-directed, outcome-informed therapy. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Franklin, C., Trepper, T. S., Gingerich, W. J., & McCollum, E. E. (Eds.) (2012). Solution-
focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 20–36). New
York: Oxford.

Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (2002). Narrative therapy with couples . . . and a whole lot
more. Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Gardner, P. J., & Poole, J. M. (2009). One story at a time: Narrative therapy, older adults,
and addictions. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 28, 600–620.

Gilligan, S. G., & Price, R. (1993). Therapeutic conversations. New York: W. W. Norton
Headman, N. C. (2002). The use of narrative therapy with couples affected by anxiety dis-

orders. In C. R. Figley (Ed.). Brief treatments for the traumatized: A project of the
Green Cross Foundation (pp. 81–92). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Huntington, J. F. (2001). A hermeneutical critique of narrative therapy. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62, 1580.

Jacobson, N., & Greenley, D. (2001). What is recovery? A conceptual model and explication.
Psychiatric Services, 52, 482–485.

Kim, J. S. (2008). Examining the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-
analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 107–116.

Kim, J. S., Smock, S., Trepper, T. S., McCollum, E. E., & Franklin, C. (2010). Is solution-
focused brief therapy evidence-based? Families in Society, 91, 300–306.

Lehmann, P., & Patton, J. (2011). The development of a solution-focused fidelity instru-
ment: A pilot study. In C. Franklin, T. S. Trepper, McCollum, E. E., & Gingerich,
W. J. (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice
(pp. 39–54). New York: Oxford.

Lipchik, E. (1999). Theoretical and practical thoughts about expanding the solution-focused
approach to include emotions. In W. A. Ray & S. de Shazer (Eds.), Evolving brief
therapies: Essays in honor of John Weakland (pp. 157–172). Galena, IL: Geist and
Russell.

G4248.indd 85 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

86 Chang and Nylund

Madsen, W. (2007). Collaborative therapies with multi-stressed families (2nd ed.). New
York: Norton.

Maisel, R., Epston, D., & Borden, A. (2004). Biting the hand that starves you: Inspiring
resistance in anorexia/bulimia. New York: Norton.

McKergow, M., & Glass, C. (2008). Chris Iveson: Striving towards minimalism in changing
scenery. InterAction, 2, 122–132.

McLeod, J. (1997). Narrative and psychotherapy. London: Sage.
Miller, G., & de Shazer, S. (1998). Have you heard the latest rumor about . . . ? Solution-

focused therapy as a rumor. Family Process, 37, 363–377.
Miller, S. D., Hubble, M. A., & Duncan, B. L. (1996). Handbook of solution-focused brief

therapy: Foundations, applications, and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mills, S. D., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1995). Family therapy in the postmodern era. Family Rela-

tions, 44, 368–376.
Myerhoff, B. (1986). Life not death in Venice: Its second life. In V. Turner & E. Bruner (Eds.),

The anthropology of experience (pp. 262–288). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Nelson, T. S., & Thomas, F. N (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy:

Clinical applications. New York: Haworth Press.
Nylund, D. (2000). Treating Huckleberry Finn: A new narrative approach with kids diag-

nosed ADD/ADHD. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nylund, D. (2007). Beer, babes, and balls: Masculinity and sports talk radio. Albany, NY:

SUNY Press.
Nylund, D., & Chang, J. (2001, November). Dialogue: Narrative and solution-focused

therapies. Presentation at the PanPacific Brief Psychotherapy Association, Osaka,
Japan.

Osis, M., & Stout, L. (2001). Using narrative therapy with older adults. In G. M. Kenyon,
P. G. Clark, & B. de Vries (Eds.) (2001). Narrative gerontology: Theory, research,
and practice (pp. 273–290). New York: Springer.

Parker, I. (2004). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.

Pichot, T., & Dolan, Y. (2003). Solution-focused brief therapy: Its effective use in agency
settings. New York: Haworth Press.

Positive Psychology Center (2007). Positive psychology. Retrieved August 25, 2011, from
http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/

Richert, A. J. (2010). Integrating existential and narrative therapy: A theoretical base for
eclectic practice. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Saleebey, D. (2003). Strengths-based practice. In R. A. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social
work (19th ed.) (pp. 150–162). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage.
Skovholt, T. M., & Rønnestad, M. H. (1995). The evolving professional self: Stages and

themes in therapist and counselor development. New York: Wiley.
Smock, S. A. (2012). A review of solution-focused, standardized outcome measures and

other strengths oriented outcome measures. In C. Franklin, T. Trepper, W. Gingerich,
& E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based
practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Smock, S. A., McCollum, E. E., & Stevenson, M. L. (2010). The development of the solution
building inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 499–510.

Stams, G. J. J., Dekovic, M., Buist, K., & de Vries, L. (2006). Effectiviteit van oplossings-

G4248.indd 86 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies 87

gerichte korte therapie: Een meta-analyse [Effectiveness of solution-focused brief
therapy: A meta-analysis]. Gedragstherapie, 39, 81–95.

Strong, T., & Gale, J. (2013). Postmodern clinical research: In and out of the margins. Journal
of Systemic Therapies, 32(2), 46–57.

Tahir, L. (2005). The evolving systems approach and narrative therapy for incarcerated
male youth. In D. B. Wallace (Ed.), Education, arts, and morality: Creative journeys
(pp. 85–101). New York: Kluwer Academic.

Tarragona, M. (2010, April). Positive psychology and social constructionist practices: Strange
bedfellows or dynamic duo? Presentation at Collaborative and Dialogic Practices in
Therapy and Social Change Conference, Cancun, Mexico.

Tilsen, J., & Nylund, D. (2010). Resisting normativity: Queer musings on politics, iden-
tity, and the performance of therapy. International Journal of Narrative Therapy and
Community Work, 3, 64–70.

Tomori, C., & Bavelas, J. B. (2007). Using microanalysis of communication to compare
solution-focused and client-centered therapies. Journal of Family Psychotherapy,
18, 25–43.

Trepper, T. S., McCollum, E. E., de Jong, P., Korman, H., Gingerich, W. J., & Frank-
lin, C. (2012). Solution-focused brief therapy treatment manual. In C. Franklin,
T. S. Trepper, W. J. Gingerich, & E. E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused brief
therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 20–36). New York: Oxford.

Vromans, L. P., & Schweitzer, R. D. (2011). Narrative therapy for adults with major de-
pressive disorder: Improved symptom and interpersonal outcomes. Psychotherapy
Research, 21, 4–15.

Waldegrave, C. (1990). Just therapy. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 1, 5–46.
Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process,

35, 261–281. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1996.00261.x
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem forma-

tion and problem resolution. New York: Norton.
Weber, M., Davis, K., & McPhie, L. (2006). Narrative therapy, eating disorders and groups:

Enhancing outcomes in rural NSW. Australian Social Work, 59, 391–405.
Weingarten, K. (1995). Cultural resistance: Challenging beliefs about men, women, and

therapy. Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press.
White, M. (1986a). Family escape from trouble. Family Therapy Case Studies, 1.
White, M. (1986b). Negative explanation, restraint, and double description: A template for

family therapy. Family Process, 25, 45–59.
White, M. (1987). Family therapy and schizophrenia: Addressing the ‘in-the-corner lifestyle.’

Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Winter, 8–14.
White, M. (2000). Reflections on narrative practice: Interviews and essays. Adelaide, Aus-

tralia: Dulwich Centre Publications.
White, M. (2005). Workshop notes. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from http://www.dulwichcentre

.com.au/michael-white-workshop-notes
White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York: W.W. Norton.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W. W.

Norton.
Winslade, J. (2009). Tracing lines of flight: Implications of the work of Gilles Deleuze

for narrative practice. Family Process, 48, 32–46. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009
.01286.x

G4248.indd 87 8/27/2013 8:27:55 AM

88 Chang and Nylund

Winslade, J. M., & Monk, G. D. (2000). Narrative mediation: A new approach to conflict
resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Winslade, J. M., & Monk, G. D. (2007). Narrative counseling in schools: Powerful & brief.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.

Yuen, A., & White, C. (Eds.) (2002). Conversations about gender, culture, violence & narra-
tive practice: Stories of hope and complexity from women of many cultures. Adelaide,
Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.

G4248.indd 88 8/27/2013 8:27:56 AM

Copyright of Journal of Systemic Therapies is the property of Guilford Publications Inc. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

This article was published April 15, 2016.
Michael D. Reiter, Ph.D., LMFT, Professor, Department of Family Therapy, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
Ronald J. Chenail, Ph.D., Associate Provost, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
Please send correspondence concerning this article to: mdreiter@nova.edu

International Journal of Solution-Focused Practices
2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-9
DOI: 10.14335/ijsfp.v4i1.27
ISSN 2001-5453 (Print) ISSN 2001-6980 (Online)

Copyright © 2016 by the Authors. By virtue of publication in IJSFP,
this article is free to use with proper attribution in educational and
other non-commercial settings.
www.ijsfp.com

Defining the Focus in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Michael D. Reiter & Ronald J. Chenail
Nova Southeastern University

Abstract

This paper explores an often underrepresented aspect of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT): the notion
of focus. The view that the focus in SFBT is on solution development is often overrepresented, and it
seems that the evolving relational focus of SFBT needs to be put in the foreground. That is, there is a
recursive relationship between the client’s focus and the therapist’s focus. In the beginning of therapy, the
therapist pays attention to the client’s focus—usually problem discussion. Once the therapist
acknowledges the client’s current position, the client is better able to pay attention to the therapist’s
alternative focus—solution development. In this paper, we utilize a case transcript of Insoo Kim Berg,
one of the developers of SFBT, to demonstrate how the relational focus moves the session forward toward
client change. We conclude by suggesting that future SFBT treatment manuals and textbooks include the
importance of having a relational focus when using SFBT in order to uphold the integrity and quality of
the SFBT model.

Keywords: solution-focused brief therapy, focus, recursiveness, relational focus

Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) has been

thoroughly studied (see McKeel, 2012, for an extensive
review); however, people may not always be exploring the
most important aspect of the model. Some explore the
“therapy” aspect (i.e., the various techniques, such as the
miracle, exception, and scaling questions), some the “brief”
aspect (i.e., average number of sessions), and others the
“solution” aspect (i.e., the solution-building process).
Perhaps the most influential aspect of SFBT, however, is the
“focused” aspect. In this paper, we will examine this often
ignored component and will define what it means for the
model.

Focus can be defined as the center of attraction, a state
or condition permitting clear perception or understanding, or
directed attention (“Focus,” n.d.). We assert that the focused
aspect of therapy tends to get lost—leading to potentially
destructive therapeutic interactions. As Ghul (2005) noted,
beginners tend to be “over-focused on the ‘classic’ solution-
focused questions” and are “more concerned with asking the
questions in the right way at the right time than working in
tune with the client” (p. 170). When this happens, therapy
shifts from being “solution-focused” to “solution-forced”
therapy. For example, in their work with mothers who have
a child with severe intellectual disabilities, Lloyd and Dallos
(2008) found that the mothers viewed the miracle question
as irrelevant and confusing. The researchers believed this
was because the therapist was misattuned with the client at

that point in the session, as the miracle question would not
have made sense for the client.

We believe that such a tendency of solution-forced
therapy happens because therapists lose sight of the
therapeutic interchange and the importance of connecting
with the client’s worldview and, in essence, the therapist
becomes a technician who is separate from the client. Eve
Lipchik also explained that clients may maintain their
problem-focused positions when therapists ask questions
that are disconnected from the conversational flow and the
client’s emotionality (Young, 2005). However, in SFBT, our
contention is that the “focused” aspect of treatment is a
relational action that connects therapist and client. When
therapy lacks this attunement, therapists will have a more
difficult time understanding the client’s concerns and, in
turn, the client will have a more difficult time following the
therapist’s invitations to alternative perspectives of their
situation. In this paper, we will utilize a case transcript of
Insoo Kim Berg (1994b) working with a couple, from a
training tape she developed, to highlight how she pays
attention to the clients’ concerns and then, conversely, how
the clients draw their attention to Berg’s uncovering of their
strengths and resources. This recursive operation of focus
helps move solution-focused sessions from problems to
solutions and prevents sessions devolving into being
solution-forced interchanges. The purpose of this paper is to
explore this often disregarded aspect of SFBT—an aspect

DEFINING THE FOCUS

2

that demonstrates how practitioners must understand the
therapeutic system rather than just the nuts and bolts of the
model.

We believe that there are times that SFBT therapists
restrict the range of their therapeutic focus too narrowly.
That is, therapists seem sometimes to understate or neglect
that a fundamental part of doing SFBT is to follow the
client. Examples of this also can be seen in current texts on
SFBT; for instance, the Solution-Focused Brief Therapy
Association’s official treatment manual states that one of the
basic tenets of SFBT is that “the therapeutic focus should be
on the client’s desired future rather than on past problems or
current conflicts” (Bavelas et al., 2013, p. 2). In the
manual’s listing of the tenets of SFBT, the importance of
adjusting to the client’s focus is not included. However, the
contributors to the manual do point out that the therapist
should listen to the client’s words and phrases in the listen,
select, and build process—but this is mainly in order to
listen for aspects of a solution. While we agree that focusing
on the client’s desired future is the desired outcome, this
description does not paint the full picture of how to get
there—that the therapeutic focus is a flowing interchange
between therapist and client. Similar descriptions can be
seen in some of the books popularizing SFBT. For example,
Connie (2012) was even more adamant about not addressing
what might be called problems: “Another task for the
[solution-focused] therapist at this point in the process is to
reject any invitation to be drawn into problem talk” (p. 19).
While it might be viewed as optimal to only address clients’
strengths, resources, and solutions from the onset, we hold
caution in not acknowledging client’s concerns, as they
bring them to therapy. For instance, if a couple entered
therapy with the wife’s complaint that the husband does not
hear her when she points out things she does not like in the
relationship, a therapist who does not acknowledge her
concerns would be recapitulating the process that she is
complaining about—leading to a potential disconnect in the
therapeutic relationship. Also, by not focusing on the wife’s
problem focus, that is, her husband, or—more accurately—
the times when she feels her husband is not listening, then
the therapist might not be able to help the wife focus on
relevant exceptions (i.e., times when she hears her husband
apparently listening). For us, focusing in SFBT would allow
us to acknowledge and verify her current position, as well as
address what she is hoping for—to be heard and listened to.

When exploring the history of SFBT, the model was not
originally called solution-focused therapy. De Shazer et al.’s
(1986) seminal article was entitled “Brief Therapy: Focused
Solution Development,” and this title was in direct
comparison to Weakland, Fisch, Watzlawick, and Bodin’s
(1974) paper, “Brief Therapy: Focused Problem
Resolution,” as the originators of SFBT developed their
model out of their application of the Mental Research
Institute brief therapy model. This shows that de Shazer
(1991) originally referred to the SFBT approach as “the
focused solution development model” (p. 58) and that in
these early titles, the focused aspect of the model took
precedence.

While SFBT is solution-focused rather than problem-
focused, the two are intertwined. A therapist cannot push for
solutions if the client is stuck in a problem focus. Thus, it is
the therapist’s responsibility to meet the client where he/she
is and then add alternatives to the context (i.e., alternative

meaning

s, behaviors, or cognitions). De Shazer et al. (1986)
initially discussed this notion of matching as “fit.” They
explained:

In order to construct solutions, it can be useful to
find out as much as possible about the constraints of
the complaint situation and the interaction involved,
because the solution (that is, change in interaction)
needs to “fit” within the constraints of that situation
in such a way as to allow a solution to develop. (p.
208)

The fit that we see happening here is the apparent

relationship between the therapist’s focus and the
complaint/solution dynamic. Digging deeper, we can
explore how the therapist contacts the complaint—through
the client’s explanation. As such, the therapist’s inquiry
must fit the client’s perspective to get the information the
therapist needs to understand the complaint/solution
sequence. This fit may be seen as being “in between”
(McKergow & Korman, 2009), where what happens in the
therapy room is not scripted, but rather is based on what is
happening in the moment between therapist and client via
their dialogue and interaction.

Whose Focus?

The focus in SFBT involves both therapist and client’s
mutual co-construction. However, it is the therapist who
must be mindful of where she places her direction. De
Shazer et al. (1986) explained that the therapist should be
collaborating with clients to describe their preferred
understandings—the ones that they emphasize in their
explanations of their situations. When examining potential
pathways to solution development, the client’s explanations
are a prime avenue of opportunity. Thus, the therapist’s
focus is geared not only toward the client’s descriptions of
complaints (problems), but also on what clients are saying
are not problems or when complaints are not as problematic.

In order to do this, the therapist must understand where
the client currently is and where the client’s focus is located.
In her microanalysis of SFBT sessions, Bavelas (2012)
explored the co-construction of language. One aspect of this
involves the understanding of when the therapist uses
formulation (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970). Formulation, in the
therapeutic context, occurs when the therapist summarizes
what the client said and this summarization demonstrates the
therapist’s attention on the client’s perspectives. Berg
(1994a) provided some questions to assist the therapist to
tune into the client’s perspectives; these include: “What is
important to this client? What would make sense to him?
How does he see the problem? How does he explain that he
has this problem?” (p. 54). Whatever response is given, it is

REITER & CHENAIL

3

the therapist’s job to first adapt to the client’s worldview
instead of the client first adapting to the therapist’s. As Berg
(1994a) explained, “When the client thinks you respect and
validate his ideas, he will respect and validate your input”
(p. 54).

As can be seen, focus is a relational process. The focus
of SFBT is not devoid of therapist and client—where there
is only an exploration of solutions. Focus is a back-and-forth
flow between therapist and client and client and therapist; it
encompasses where they are together placing their attention.
In this relational process, the therapist expands what he or
she is paying attention to, first seeing what the client views
as significant at that point in time (usually
problems/complaints at the beginning of therapy) as well as
what is understated or unsaid of that communication (i.e.,
the goals—for instance, when the client states, “I don’t want
to fight with my spouse,” they are saying not only what they
do not want, but also what they do want—to get along with
their spouse). SFBT sessions move forward when the focus
of the session is mutual between therapist and client.

There are various qualities of focus to determine
whether the therapist and client are engaged in the same
discourse. These qualities, based partially off of Karl
Tomm’s (1984) distinction of Milan systemic therapy
questions, include perspective, spatial, temporal, behavioral,
and affective focus. The perspective quality includes a focus
on problems or solutions. The spatial quality examines what
happens between persons. The temporal quality explores
distinctions in time, while the behavioral quality examines
how people have changed their actions. Finally, the affective
quality concerns the differences in people’s emotional states.
Therapists attend to where their clients are putting their
attention, acknowledge that position, and then shift the focus
along the continuum of that quality. For instance, if a
husband complains about his wife, the therapist can
acknowledge the complaint and then shift to a reciprocal
interaction between wife and husband to see if the husband
shifts as well. The therapist might make a statement such as
the following:

For you, you don’t like it when Maya yells at you. It
seems that what you are hoping for between the two
of you is a different type of interaction. How would
you prefer things to be between the two of you?

SFBT has been criticized, since not much time is spent

on examining the complaint or its etiology. However, this is
not an accurate critique of the model. In exploring de Shazer
et al.’s (1986) seminal article, much time is spent discussing
the client’s complaints. However, it is presented as the
absence of the complaint. When clients come to therapy,
they usually start a first session with a focus on
complaints—who is doing what, when, where, and how.
This is important, because a therapist’s verification of a
client’s worldview helps the client feel understood and
serves to connect therapist and client (Short, 2010). Short
(2010) explained that effective therapists usually do not
impose their worldview on clients, but rather, work from
within the client’s worldview. De Jong and Berg (2008)

explained that “it is important to listen to these concerns to
orient yourself to their situation, discern who and what are
important to them, and let them know they are being heard”
(p. 45). When therapists do not listen, acknowledge, and
verify a client’s initial position, they run the risk of engaging
in solution-forced therapy.

While complaints may seem to be the client’s primary
direction, the client also desires a life of more than these
complaints. By talking with the client about their complaint
and joining with that attention, the therapist can also connect
with the sometimes unfocused focus—the idea of life
without the complaint. This can be seen in the interplay
between problem talk and solution talk—the perspective
quality of focus. Usually, a session begins in the realm of
problem talk, where therapists allow their attention to align
with the client’s presenting explanations. During this
conversation, the therapist will try to uncover the client’s
focus on their life devoid of the complaint—what is called
solution talk (Furman & Ahola, 1992). Typically, the SFBT
therapist opens a session with an offering of solution talk—
perhaps by asking, “What needs to happen here in our work
together so that you know that coming here has been worth
it to you?” (de Shazer, 2005, p. 71). If the client follows that
opening, the therapist continues in that direction. However,
if the client engages in problem talk, the therapist can
respect that position, acknowledge it, and open pathways to
alternative possibilities. Figure 1 presents a visualization of
the process of relational focus in SFBT.

Figure 1. The relational process of focus in SFBT sessions.

We can look at this shift from problem talk to solution

talk as a shift in the language game occurring between client
and therapist (de Shazer & Berg, 1992). In essence, what
had been secondary (the absence of the problem or the
presence of something beyond the problem) now becomes
primary and in tandem, what was primary (the complaint)
now becomes secondary. We can also look at this in terms
of being focused and unfocused, as in the case of taking a
picture with a camera. When using a camera with a lens, we
focus in on a particular object, which becomes clear, while
other objects become unfocused and blurry. In order to focus
on the blurred image, the original focus point must become

•Solution
Talk

•Solution
Talk

•Problem
Talk

•Problem
Talk

Client focus
on

complaints

Therapist
focus on
client’s
focus

(complaints)

Therapist
focus on
non-

complaint
future

Client focus
on non-
complaint
focus

DEFINING THE FOCUS

4

blurred. What is being described is the process of moving
back and forth between problem and solution talk. Problem
talk is concentration on what is not working, while solution
talk is conversation outside of the complaint (Berg & de
Shazer, 1993). The more the conversation centers on
solutions (non-problem times), the more therapist—and
most importantly the client—believe in and move toward
what they are conversing about. This shift in the
conversation may come about as therapists notice the hints
of possibility in the client’s story (De Jong & Berg, 2008).
These are points in the conversation where an opening to
solution building occurs.

Cooperating

When the therapist’s and client’s focus are in agreement,
cooperation occurs. Along with developing rapport with the
client, cooperating is one of the solution-focused therapist’s
two main emphases in the first session (de Shazer, 1982,
1985). De Shazer (1982) defined cooperating in the
following manner:

Each family (individual or couple) shows a unique
way of attempting to cooperate, and the therapist’s
job becomes, first, to describe that particular manner
to himself that the family shows and, then, to
cooperate with the family’s way and, thus, to
promote change. (pp. 9–10)

Cooperating is a re-description of “resistance” (de

Shazer, 1984). This happens when the therapist widens the
lens of understanding from the family-as-a-system to family
therapy-as-a-system. The latter includes both the family and
the therapist. As such, the therapist must pay attention to
how connected he or she is with the client’s worldview as
the therapist can make an error of not listening to what the
client wants and does not want. De Shazer explained that a
therapist’s error “would mean to me that the therapist wasn’t
listening, and therefore he told the client to do something the
client didn’t want to do” (as cited in Hoyt, 1996, p. 64).

SBFT’s relational focus is multifaceted. In one respect,
the therapist pays attention to how family members’
intentions and desires are aligned. However, what makes
therapy move forward is the relationally aligned focus
between therapist and client. As such, each person’s use of
language impacts how the conversation flows. De Shazer
and Berg (1992) described this back-and-forth process:

Clients describe their situation from their own
particular, unique point of view. The therapist
listens, always seeing things differently, always
having different meanings for the words that clients
use, and thus redescribes what the clients describe
from a different point of view. The possibilities of
new meanings open up from these two different
descriptions, these two different meanings, when
they are juxtaposed. . . . The result is not the client’s

views and meanings and it is not the therapist’s view
and meaning but something different from both.
(p. 77)

De Shazer (1982, 1991) described this process as a

binocular theory of change: When two vantage points are
used to examine something and there is enough similarity
yet difference between the two, something new emerges.
Figure 2 presents how the client’s and therapist’s focus and
meanings combine to provide a different direction for
therapy—one that moves toward solutions and goals.

Figure 2. The binocularity between client and therapist
focus and meaning.

While the therapist must understand the client’s

worldview and engage in conversation that supports it, the
therapist must also see more than the client’s worldview (de
Shazer, 1982). This allows difference to enter the
interaction, providing clients the opportunity out of their
limited perception of the problem sequence to the solution
sequence. One primary way that therapists introduce a
different perspective is through hedging, or when the
therapist takes ownership of a thought without bringing it
forth as truth. For instance, the therapist might say, “This is
just a thought, that . . .” or “I’m not sure if this is your
perspective, but it seems . . .” Hedging is a way to
demonstrate therapist neutrality. Here, the therapist is
neutral, so as to not take sides with family members and so
that the client can choose to accept (or not) the perspective
the therapist proposes.

A part of a client’s worldview is their ascribed meaning
(frames) to a situation (de Shazer, 1985). The ascribed
meaning to a frame involves whether the client views it with
positive meaning or negative meaning. In using this
terminology, it is possible to examine focus by
understanding whether therapist and client agree on the
frame. If so, their focus is in sync. Thus, a solution-focused
therapist’s focus is on the client’s frame.

This notion of connection between therapist and client
can be seen in the design of the intervention given to the
client. De Shazer et al. (1986) developed an intervention
design worksheet to help train therapists to work from the
model. The final guideline is to “decide what will fit for the
particular client(s), i.e. which task, based on which variable .
. . will the client(s) most likely accept and perform. What
will make sense to the particular client(s)?” (de Shazer et al.,
1986, p. 216). In effect, the therapist’s frame for the
intervention has to fit the client’s frame of what is
happening and what could help. One of the original mantras
for SFBT was that if the client’s goals and the therapist’s

Client’s
focus and

world
view/

meaning

Therapist’s
focus and
meaning

New focus
and

meaning

REITER & CHENAIL

5

goals were different, then the therapist was incorrect (Hoyt,
1996).

Solution-focused interventions are designed to fit within
the client’s worldview. Part of this happens through the
therapist’s creating a “yes set” with the client. Here, the
therapist asks the client questions that are most likely
answered with a “yes.” De Shazer et al. (1986) described
this process:

Simply, the start of the therapeutic message is
designed to let clients know that the therapist sees
things their way and agrees with them. This, of
course, allows the clients to agree easily with the
therapist. Once this agreement is established, then
the clients are in a proper frame of mind to accept
clues about solutions, namely, something new and
different. (pp. 216–217)

Thus, it is the therapist’s responsibility to shift their

attention—even if just for a short time—to align with the
client’s, and then see if the client will shift their attention to
the therapist’s focus on the non-complaint times. This is
made easier through the process of reciprocity. People are
more likely to give to another when the first person has
previously given. In the therapy realm, this happens when
the therapist first shifts to the client’s position, which then
leads to a greater possibility of the client reciprocating this
flexibility and shifting to the therapist’s position (Short,
2010). Each SFBT solution-building technique is fashioned
in relation to the client’s focus of who, what, where, and
when are seen as problematic.

Analyzing the Use of Focus in a Session:
Leslie and Bill

In this section, we will demonstrate how an SFBT

therapist moves sessions forward by engaging in a relational
interchange of back-and-forth focus by utilizing one of
Insoo Kim Berg’s (1994b) training tapes. The case depicts a
couple, Leslie and Bill, who are coming to therapy to
address their marriage. In the beginning of the session, Berg
attempts to join and socialize with the couple, asking Bill
about his work. While describing his job as a lawyer, Leslie
states that he is out every evening and spends time with a lot
of female clients. Berg then asks Leslie about what she does.
Leslie explains that she works as director of customer
service for a telephone company and that she is the primary
caretaker for their children.

Client’s Focus on Problem Talk

In this segment (Excerpt 1), taken from early on in the
session, we will see where Bill and Leslie place their focus.

Excerpt 1.
Leslie (1.01): I have primary responsibility of doing the

housework, the shopping, the child care.
Insoo Kim Berg (1.02): And your children are very small?
Leslie (1.03): They’re very small.

Insoo Kim Berg (1.04): They’re very small, 5 and 3.
Leslie (1.05): Right.
Insoo Kim Berg (1.06): I’m sure they keep you very busy.
Leslie (1.07): Right, at home. Yes, and I actually take

responsibility for Bill’s, um, son, ah.
Insoo Kim Berg (1.08): Hmm.
Leslie (1.09): By his first marriage.
Insoo Kim Berg (1.10): Uh huh.
Leslie (1.11): Bill Jr., ah.
Insoo Kim Berg (1.12): Yeah.
Bill (1.13): On occasion. On occasion.
Leslie (1.14): No, that’s more than—
Bill (1.15): Not right there really, I mean.
Leslie (1.16): When was the last time that you went to pick

up Bill Jr. and took him back home.
Insoo Kim Berg (1.17): Okay.
Leslie (1.18): Or make the arrangements.
Insoo Kim Berg (1.19): Let me—let me come back to that.

Let me come back to that again. I’m sure you have a lot
of issues. It sounds like you—how long have you been
together?

Bill (1.20): Seven years.
Insoo Kim Berg (1.21): Seven years. Okay.
Leslie (1.22): Seven long years.

At this point in the session, both Bill and Leslie have

been describing aspects of their marriage that they find
problematic (e.g., Leslie having primary responsibility for
the children, as expressed in Turn 1.01, including the son
from Bill’s first marriage, as described in Turn 1.07). They
have complaints, mainly about what the other person does
and does not do (see Turn 1.16). Their focus is on what they
do not like the other person doing or not doing—what we
would call problem talk.

Therapist’s Focus on Clients’ Problem Talk

Initially, the therapist’s focus is on the client’s focus.
The case of Bill and Leslie is similar to most cases coming
to therapy; the client comes in with concerns and complaints
and wants to inform the therapist about them.

Figure 3. The relationship between therapist and client focus
on complaints and non-complaints

Client’s focus on
complaints

Client’s focus
on non-

complaints

Therapist’s
focus on
complaints
and non-
complaints

DEFINING THE FOCUS

6

While the therapist knows that hidden beneath these
complaints are goals and solutions, they must first join with
their client in a collaborative dialogic endeavor, beginning
with acknowledging and verifying the client’s position. If
this can be achieved, the therapist is then better able to shift
the focus and have the client follow. Figure 3 shows the
interconnection between therapist and client focus on
complaints and non-complaints.

Excerpt 2.
Insoo Kim Berg (2.01): So, it sounds like you both are

feeling very frustrated about what’s going or what’s not
going on between the two of you?

Bill (2.02): Well, you know. I mean, she has zero
understanding about what’s going on and makes . . .

Insoo Kim Berg (2.03): Right.
Bill (2.04): It is very difficult.
Leslie (2.05): See, that’s part of the problem.
Bill (2.06): We used to communicate.
Leslie (2.07): See, I got that.
Bill (2.08): but now . . .
Leslie (2.09): It’s always me. I have the zero understanding.

He understands it all.
Insoo Kim Berg (2.10): Sure.
Leslie (2.11): He understands it all. That’s—that’s the

problem.
Insoo Kim Berg (2.12): Right. Right.

During this segment, Insoo stays with Leslie and Bill’s

focus on what is happening for them in Turn 2.01—that
Leslie feels she has the brunt of the responsibility for
caretaking and Bill believes that they used to communicate
better. In her longest intervention (Turn 2.01), Berg engages
in hedging (“So, it sounds like . . .”) when she makes a
statement that we would call a formulation—framing their
complaints as frustration. This is an attempt by Berg to
engage in mutualization—highlighting their joint focus of
what is (or is not) happening in the marriage that they do not
like.

Therapist’s Focus on Solutions

While the therapist begins sessions focused on the
client’s focus, to be useful to the client the therapist is also
focused on the unfocused focus of the clients—times when
the complaint is reduced or absent. By first connecting with
where the client’s focus is at (during problem talk; see Turn
2.01 in Excerpt 2), the therapist has validated the client’s
worldview and is in a better position to shift the focus to the
unfocused exceptions that have been occurring in the
client’s life. In this segment (see Excerpt 3), Berg hears
Leslie’s complaint (i.e., wanting to see Bill being more
responsible; Turn 3.12) as well as an exception to that
complaint (i.e., Leslie seeing Bill as being more responsible;
Turns 3.13–3.30). She then shifts the talk from the problem
to the unfocused focus—the exception.

Excerpt 3.
Bill (3.01): If we can come out of this with some ground-

level communication, I will think that it has been
successful.

Insoo Kim Berg (3.02): Okay, Okay.
Bill (3.03): But, I mean—you know—we just have a

problem . . .
Insoo Kim Berg (3.04): All right.
Bill (3.05): . . . of being able to talk, together.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.06): I understand.
Bill (3.07): And say . . .
Leslie (3.08): [talking over each other] I talk and you don’t

even say anything when I talk . . .
Bill (3.09): [talking over each other] You know, and hear

each other.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.10): Okay.
Leslie (3.11): . . . anymore.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.12): Hang on a minute. Hang on a

minute. Now, let me come back to this. You mentioned
Bill being more responsible.

Leslie (3.13): Yes. I’d like . . .
Insoo Kim Berg (3.14): Okay.
Leslie (3.15): . . . to see more of that.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.16): Okay. Uh-huh.
Leslie (3.17): I—I appreciate him as a provider.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.18): Right.
Leslie (3.19): You know, I appreciate him as a husband. I do

love him.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.20): You do?
Leslie (3.21): And, and I know he does work hard.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.22): You do love him?
Leslie (3.23): Yes, I do.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.24): Oh.
Leslie (3.25): I do.
Insoo Kim Berg (3.26): Uh-huh. Okay. So when he is more

responsible, what will he be doing that he is not doing
right now? That will let you know he’s being more
responsible?

Leslie (3.27): He will take responsibility more for our
children. He will take more responsibility for his own
son, whom I love very much too.

Insoo Kim Berg (3.28): Okay.
Leslie (3.29): He will take responsibility to include me and

have respect for me—include me in his activities and
have respect for me. It hurts me.

Insoo Kim Berg (3.30): Okay.

By spending time on the couple’s frustration with one

another, Berg was also able to hear their longing (which is
the unfocused focus—they each have explained what they
want the relationship to be, but have been zeroing in on what
the relationship is not). By uncovering this unfocused focus,
the session moves from problem talk to solution talk, and
the possibility of positive movement is heightened.

Client’s Focus on Solutions

Once the therapist is able to shift the therapeutic talk
from problem focus to the unfocused focus (i.e., solutions
and exceptions), clients are better able to place their

REITER & CHENAIL

7

attention on the therapist’s focus—which will ultimately
lead to solution development. Here, Bill and Leslie focus on
Berg’s exploration of strengths, positive behaviors, and
exceptions. This segment (see Excerpt 4) comes
immediately after Insoo asks the couple the miracle
question.

Excerpt 4.
Bill (4.01): I’ll smile first thing in the morning.
Leslie (4.02): Aha.
Bill (4.03): Instead of avoidance.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.04): You’ll smile at Leslie?
Leslie (4.05): He would put his arm around me.
Bill (4.06): I don’t know about that.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.07): You’ll put your arm, okay. He . . .
Leslie (4.08): Put his arms . . .
Insoo Kim Berg (4.09): . . . will put his arm around you.
Leslie (4.10): . . . would be a real, ah, sign of a miracle at

this point.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.11): Okay. All right. So suppose he does,

what will you do in response to that? What would it . . .
Leslie (4.12): I will turn my back to him.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.13): Okay. Okay. Is that right? Is that

what she would do? Would that be a miracle for you?
Bill (4.14): Yeah, yeah. I think it would.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.15): Yeah? That was, ah—the—I mean

that will be a miracle for you.
Bill (4.16): It would be very different.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.17): That—that would be very different?

Okay.
Bill (4.18): Yeah. It would be a miracle. It would, it

would—yeah.

Leslie (4.19): Uh hmm.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.20): Okay.
Bill (4.21): It will really be different than what’s been going

on as of now.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.22): Okay, so when she turns her back

towards you instead—I mean, so she is facing you when
you smile at her—she’ll face you instead of, ah, turning
her back towards you. What will you do when you see
her do that?

Bill (4.23): Oh, I suppose I’ll embrace her—probably.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.24): Uh-huh. So you will give her a hug?
Bill (4.25): Yeah.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.26): Uh-huh. What about you, Leslie?

What will you do when he gives you a hug?
Leslie (4.27): Well, if he hugs me, I’ll hug him back.
Insoo Kim Berg (4.28): Uh-huh. Okay, Okay. What will

come after that?
Leslie (4.29): Well, Saturday? Never comes out (laughs). I

guess.
Bill (4.30): Well, a miracle (laughs).
Insoo Kim Berg (4.31): (laughing) That is true. Okay, that’s

true. Okay, Okay.

By focusing on their unfocused focus—what they do
want in the relationship rather than what they do not want—
the session has moved from a language system predicated on
problems to one of solutions; the couple begins to see
miracles (see Turns 4.10, 4.18, and 4.30). Figure 4 provides
a visualization of how the therapist’s attention to the client’s
focus allows for a global shift in the focus of the session.

Figure 4. Acknowledgement and shifting of the focus in the session.

Discussion

If the SFBT therapist were to ignore the client’s initial problem focus, he or she would threaten the therapeutic

relationship. Concordance—the synergy between therapist and client in a productive alliance—is one of the common factors
for positive therapeutic change (Lambert, 1992; Wampold, 2001). Thus, the therapist’s focus is the client’s focus, which
allows for reciprocity during the course of the session—and, ultimately, allows the client to shift his or her view onto the
therapist’s views (see Berg’s intervention during her clients’ miracle talk in Excerpt 4). At first, the therapist’s focus is the
problem focus of the client (as seen in Excerpts 1 and 2), but it then switches to the unfocused focus of the complaint and
solution distinction (as seen in Excerpt 3). This then allows the therapist’s focus on exceptions located within the client’s
perspective to be utilized by the client (as seen in Excerpts 3 and 4).

By understanding relational focus, the solution-focused therapist is able to mutually engage the client in a language game
that shifts from problem talk to solution talk. In essence, the session moves from an exploration of the client’s initial focus to

• “I’ll smile first
thing in the
morning.”

• “He would put his
arm around me”

Behavioral
Focus of the

Client

• “You’ll smile at
Leslie?”

• “He will put his
arm around you.”

Behavioral
Focus of the
Therapist

• “So suppose he
does, what will you
do in response to
that?”

• “What will you do
when you see her
do that?”

• “What will you do
when he gives you
a hug?

Perspective
Focus of the
Therapist

DEFINING THE FOCUS

8

their unfocused focus—their solutions and exceptions. If the therapist determines that the client is paying attention to his or
her exploration of solution building, he or she will be able move faster and more in depth in that process. However, if the
client keeps returning to talk of complaints—problem talk—the therapist could adjust his or her speed, recognizing that there
is still no alignment between therapist and client focus. At that point, the therapist would need to reconnect to the client,
acknowledging and verifying the client’s concerns and then introducing the unfocused focus of exceptions and possibilities.

Conclusions

In this article, we promote that one of the keys to the effectiveness of SFBT is focus. While solution building is

considered a basic aim of SFBT (Pichot & Dolan, 2003), we hold that in order to get there, the key to effective therapy is
located in a relational focus. That is, the therapist’s focus should be on the client’s focus (usually complaints), which then
allows clients to shift their focus to the therapist’s focus on the exceptions and solution building. We, at times, are concerned
that SFBT therapists, especially those new to the model, will attempt to engage in therapy sessions primarily thinking about
what solution-focused question they might ask next. When this happens, they may become solution-forced as therapists but at
the cost of rupturing the therapeutic relationship. However, by having an eye on the notion of focus—and more specifically a
relational focus—SFBT therapists will be more likely attuned to the flow of the session. We therefore suggest that upcoming
books, textbooks and updates or revisions of the existing SFBT treatment manuals, for example the Solution-Focused Brief
Therapy Association’s treatment manual (Bavelas et al., 2013), clearly include the relational focus of SFBT to help guide
therapists wanting to learn the model.

References

Bavelas, J. B. (2012). Connecting the lab to the therapy

room: Microanalysis, co-construction, and solution-
focused brief therapy. In C. Franklin, T. S. Trepper, W.
J. Gingerich, & E. E. McCollum (Eds.). Solution-
focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based
practice. (pp. 144–162). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Bavelas, J., De John, P., Franklin, C., Froerer, A., Gingerich,
W., Kim, J., . . . Trepper, T. S. (2013). Solution focused
treatment manual for working with individuals (2nd
version). Santa Fe, NM: Solution Focused Brief Therapy
Association.

Berg, I. K. (1994a). Family based services: A solution-
focused approach. New York, NY: Norton.

Berg, I. K. (1994b). Irreconcilable differences: A solution-
focused approach to marital therapy. Alexandria, VA:
Alexander Street Press.

Berg, I. K., & de Shazer, S. (1993). Making numbers talk:
Language in therapy. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The new
language of change (pp. 5–24). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Connie, E. (2012). Solution building in couples therapy.
New York, NY: Springer.

De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2008). Interviewing for solutions
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

de Shazer, S. (1982). Patterns of brief family therapy. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.

de Shazer, S. (1984). The death of resistance. Family
Process, 23, 79–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-
5300.1984.00011.x
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New

York, NY: Norton.
de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York,

NY: Norton.

de Shazer, S. (2005). Inside and outside. Journal of Family

Psychotherapy, 16, 71–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J085v16n01_17

de Shazer, S., & Berg, I. K. (1992). Doing therapy: A post-
structural revision. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 18, 71–81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
0606.1992.tb00916.x

de Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar,
A., Gingerich, W., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1986). Brief
therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process,
25, 207–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-
5300.1986.00207.x

Focus. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (11th
ed.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/focus

Furman, B., & Ahola, T. (1992). Solution talk: Hosting
therapeutic conversations. New York, NY: Norton.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structure of
practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian
(Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–366). New York,
NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Ghul, R. (2005). Introducing solution-focused thinking: A
half-day workshop. Journal of Family Psychotherapy,
16, 169–174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J085v16n01_42

Hoyt, M. F. (1996). Solution building and language games:
A conversation with Steve de Shazer. In M. F. Hoyt
(Ed.), Constructive therapies (Vol. 2, pp. 60–86). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lambert, M. J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research:
Implications for integrative and eclectic therapists. In J.
C. Norcross & M. R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of

REITER & CHENAIL

9

psychotherapy integration (pp. 94–129). New York,
NY: Basic Books.

Lloyd, H., & Dallos, R. (2008). First session solution-
focused brief therapy with families who have a child
with severe intellectual disabilities: Mothers’
experiences and views. Journal of Family Therapy, 30,
5–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6427.2008.00413.x

McKeel, J. (2012). What works in solution-focused brief
therapy: A review of change process research. In C.
Franklin, T. S Trepper, W. J. Gingerich, & E. E.
McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A
handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 130–143).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

McKergow, M., & Korman, H. (2009). Inbetween—Neither
inside nor outside: The radical simplicity of solution-
focused brief therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies,
28, 34–49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2009.28.2.34

Pichot, T., & Dolan, Y. M. (2003). Solution-focused brief
therapy: Its effective use in agency settings. New York,
NY: The Haworth Clinical Practice Press.

Short, D. (2010). Transformational relationships:
Deciphering the social matrix in psychotherapy.
Phoenix, AZ: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen.

Tomm, K. (1984), One perspective on the Milan systemic
approach: Part II. Description of session format,
interviewing style and interventions. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 10, 253–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
0606.1984.tb00016.x

Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate:
Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weakland, J., Fisch, R., Watzlawick, P., & Bodin, A. M.
(1974). Brief therapy: Focused problem resolution.
Family Process, 13, 141–168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-
5300.1974.00141.x

Young, K. (2005). An interview with Eve Lipchik:
Expanding solution-focused thinking. Journal of
Systemic Therapies, 24, 67–74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.24.1.67.65913