The Discursive Performance of Change Process in Systemic and Constructionist Therapies: A Systematic Meta‐Synthesis Review of In‐Session Therapy Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the emphasis of systemic and constructionist approaches on discourse and interaction, to date there has been no comprehensive overview of how change process is performed within in-session therapeutic dialogue. In this paper, we present a qualitative meta-synthesis of 35 articles reporting systemic and constructionist therapy process data from naturally occurring therapeutic dialogue. The studies were selected following the screening against eligibility criteria of a total sample of 2,977 studies identified through a systematic search of PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases. Thematic analysis of the 35 studies' findings identified four main themes depicting change process performance: (a) shifting to a relational perspective, (b) shifting to non-pathologizing therapeutic dialogue, (c) moving-forward dialogue, and (d) the dialogic interplay of power. Findings highlight the interactional and discursive matrix within which systemic and constructionist change process occurs. Findings illuminate the value of qualitative research studies sampling naturally occurring therapeutic discourse in bringing this matrix forth, particularly when utilizing discursive methodologies like conversation or discourse analysis.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".