Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies: A Twenty-Year Retrospective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 overlapping 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 possibilities of current developments and speculate as to what this might mean for the future of both approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it