Talk:Family therapy

Family Systems Therapy redirect vs Family Therapy

Typing "family therapy" in the Wikipidia search bar redirects you to the page "family systems therapy". This seems to mean that "family therapy" and Family Systems Therapy are unqustionably synonymous. However, the term Family Systems Therapy is used in various ways

a) as a synonym for family therapy as here, in a kontext where branches of family therapy for which the title FST would not be appropriate just are not mentioned

b) in a narrower sense for schools of family therapy which are seen as in some ways inspired by General Systems Theory

c) In a very narrow sense for the approach of Murray Bowen.

Moreover there is also "systemic family therapy" (term often used in Europe), which again maybe is synonymous with FST in the sense b), maybe not. I think it would be better to have an article named just "family therapy" as it is more general and more internationnally accepted term.

The article obviously needs expanding, epecially bringing it more up to date. It is a quite briliant summing up of family therapy or FST as it was seen 30 years ago, but there have been very important developments since then, and these would be better expalained under the heading "family therapy" rather then FST.

At this point, when the article is in the stub stage, it does not seem usefull to me to include all this terminological hairsplitting into the body of the article.

Would be glad if someone reacts to this. Georgius 13:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is also a redirect in place that sends "Marriage and Family Therapist" here - that is a license designation more than a practice or theory - it should have its own small article describing the licensing requirements and then it should have lots of links to articles like this one and to psychotherapist, etc. Steve 19:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

Well, the whole paragraph about Nathan Ackerman was duplicated, for what that's worth. I'm at a loss, though. Does every theorist mentioned here deserve a separate article, or should we just break this one up into sections (and if so, what do we do with the Ackerman article?) This is too big of a decision for me (and yes, that was a cop-out). Also, since all the information on the theorists was added in large, unwikified chunks, should we suspect copyvio? JP | Tark 02:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) [copied here from Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Family therapy — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)]

Yikes! It certainly looks that way (copyvio-like). My cursory Google search only turned up WP mirrors, though—it's been in the article for a long time. I'll try some more detailed searches tomorrow. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am the author of the "copyvio-like" article. I "copied" it (slightly edited) from a paper I wrote for a Family Therapy course (hence its academic tone). Thus, there is no copyright violation. I wrote the paper in the early 1980s, so the estimate given by Georgius is fairly accurate (and thank you, Georgius for calling it a brilliant summary--I rather liked it, too, hence my decision to share it here). If copyright concerns were the only factor in deleting it, please feel free to restore it, although of course the questions regatding detailing each theorists' theories in this one article remains. I happily offered the paper, and I'll leave it to those more involved in the structure of Wikipedia to determine how best to use it. But as to copyright issues, fear not.

Thanks for sharing your work (which I'll accept as authentic unless someone presents evidence to the contrary, though a specific name and citation would help, from either Knowwledge Seeker or 71.108.18.201)! I've reverted the revert, and we can continue to move on from there. I'd love to see more on Murray Bowen. --NealMcB July 7, 2005 04:09 (UTC)

I'm splitting this up into articles on each (there is tons of information on each of the founders out there. However I am leaving the resynthesis/comparison of all of the different approaces to someone more knowledgeable in the field. --Meawoppl 23:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

merge from "Couple and family therapy"

Given both articles start Couple and family therapy is there a reason they should not be merged with a redirect. Although that article is purely US in scope and would need expansion -- Paul foord 06:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above, both seem to touch on virtually the same core subject matter. Netkinetic 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to comment that this page is inaccurate as to the scope of practice for MFT's. Currently MFT's are able to work with families, individuals and children in multiple settings including individual and group. They can however also work in agencies and many work in academia, as college and school counselors and in administration. The field is expanding on the scope of training provided to MFT students and the jobs they get after they graduate and/or become licensed.

Re removal of the majority of external links by SiobhanHansa

(1) The relevant policy WP:NOT would not appear to have clearly defined the previous list (including the most recent additions by 192.102.230.171 and 74.135.42.89 – NB, not me, and I don’t know them) as being a “directory”.

(2) The links in the list might appear to have met the following criterion in the guidelines in WP:EL

“1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.”

However, a very great proportion – possibly the majority – of pages containing external links would likely fail on that single criterion.

(3) The list retained by SiobhanHansa is arbitrary (with the exception of the one dead link removed), and with all due respect, reveals an unfamiliarity with the field of Family therapy. The field is highly political, ideological, and values-based – and this has very real implications for those seeking help, who can be left bewildered and demoralized by the “help” that they are offered by the mainstream of the profession. There is for example, growing disaffection with the main representative body – the AAMFT. The AACFT (that 192.102.230.171 and 74.135.42.89 attempted to link) was in part set up as a direct response to this disaffection (NB: I have no personal connection to this organization).

The article has moved some way toward a recognition of these issues via the additions and modifications by various editors over time. But to fairly and accurately convey the degree of diversity and divergence of views in the field would require a very great expansion of the article in a way that would probably not be of great interest to the general public, and would almost certainly fail to achieve a consensus amongst “insiders.”

The various organizations represented in the list of external links represented, to some degree, the diversity of views in the field, as well as cultural and geographic differences (note the WP:CSB tag). I would therefore request that most of the external links be restored, possibly with some more explicit recognition within the body of the article of the issues that I have touched on, and the reasons for the number of links. Marschalko 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow responding to your concerns, I've been away for a few days. On the links issue - I disagree that a list of associations is appropriate for this article, in large part because the area is so political, ideological, and values-based and such a listing does nothing to provide context for the reader. While I'm not familiar with this subject I am aware of some of those issues - and it was the lack of usefulness that a simple listing to the association site provided that prompted me to remove them. The links to those association pages provide virtually no information of use to a general reader. They are almost all limited to listing member therapists - and it is for that reasons that I consider the section to be becoming a directory. Having these here does not help a reader unfamiliar with the field, the focus on the USA is inappropriate for an internation encyclopedia, and with no clear criteria for inclusion it becomes a magnet for promotional additions. If there were one main professional association it would be one thing. But so many makes it too much of a jump from the main purpose of the external links section, which is to provide further information about family therapy, not links to services.

As to what I left being arbitrary - yes, it was. It was a first pass and I tried only to remove sites where I couldn't find anything for a general reader that provided information about family therapy. Links I left might have been inappropriate and, though I tried to look through them all, I may have missed information on some of the sites I removed.

Having a section in the article that discusses the diversity of views in the field and links to Wikipedia articles on the major associations or schools of thought would, I think, be excellent. I don't think linking out to websites that provide nothing beyond member listings provides any encyclopedic value. -- SiobhanHansa 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re removal of sentence re oxytocin by Jamespkeim

The sentence re oxytocin might not appeal to those in the current family therapy establishment, but it reflects a significant emerging area of research in the field, much of which is conducted in universities, and published in reliable sources that comply with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines for notability WP:N and reliability WP:RS. Google returns many hundreds of entries for searches of “family therapy” and oxytocin or “couples therapy” and oxytocin. The research addresses directly and critically some of the core established doctrines of family therapy, which in the respective authors’ views, have been found wanting in the light of clinical experience.

Wikipedia is meant for the general public and is intended to express a range of views on any particular topic (while maintaining neutrality overall), and not just the party line. Emerging or minority trends in particular fields – especially those that are heterodox but based on sound argument and evidence – are of particular importance and interest, as these are the places where potentially significant developments often occur; to provide the public with access to such knowledge – often suppressed by established interests - was one of the founding imperatives of Wikipedia.

Accordingly, in light of the above, and given that the single, short, offending sentence was appropriately referenced and did not threaten the overall balance of the article, I have restored it. Marschalko (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New Section?

In the spirit of Be Bold, I'm proposing and have entered a new section: == Popularized Methodologies ==

• The Five Love Languages
• Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus
• Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
• Neuro-linguistic programming

Comments? Additions? Boos? Simesa (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Popularized Methodologies" belongs right under "Methodologies". However, if we keep it this way, I do feel it is important that we have some kind of caveat stating that professionally-guided application is better. Wikipedia should not be seen as implying that self-help application of these methodologies will always be successful. Simesa (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The article systemic therapy actually describes "family therapy" which was a forerunner to systemic therapy. Systemic therapy does not restrict itself solely to families but instead focuses more broadly on systems which may include families but is not limited to them.

Further, the page systemic psychology is improperly titled. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as "systemic psychology", what is described there is known as "systemic therapy".

Given this I propose that

1) we merge the content of systemic therapy with this page since it is describing family therapy.

2) we take the content of the systemic psychology page and put it in the systemic therapy page.

Really, #2 would be a "move" not a merge.

--Sharktacos (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose both proposals. The first entry on this discussion page ( by Georgius 13:17, 27 Nov 2004) addresses this issue in part - and the problem has still not been properly resolved (and may never be) because it goes to the fundamental issue of the commonalities and differences between, and the justifications for, the 'individual' and 'systemic' paradigms. 'Systemic therapy' is not synonymous with 'family therapy' - despite the fact that many systemically-oriented people believe it to be so or would like others to believe it. Psychodynamic and intergenerational theorists and therapists in particular resent this conflation of 'systemic therapy' and 'family therapy'.

Admittedly the article on Systemic therapy is not very good and it could do with a great deal of expansion and refinement; but it should be kept separate (at this stage anyway) to recognize that it reflects only one subtype of family therapy (albeit admittedly probably the most influential). If the Family therapy article were ever to be expanded into a comprehensive article, then maybe it could be merged at that stage. But as has already been discussed on this talk page, that would be a mammoth and controversial task. The current unsatisfactory state of the article reflects in part the lack of any real consensus about these fundamental issues.

With regard to the proposal to eliminate the systemic psychology page, I oppose that because the page - as meager and unsatisfactory as it is - recognizes the distinction between description (ie, 'science/knowledge') and intervention (ie, 'therapy). This was a very major issue for the most influential father of 'systems psychology', Gregory Bateson. He (and Milton Erickson) were largely responsible for the introduction of ideas from systems theory and cybernetics into psychology. However, Bateson (who was not a therapist) saw systems psychology as having far broader application than just therapy. He saw it as a fundamentally new paradigm having relevance in biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, politics, etc. Furthermore he was dismayed by the misuse that was made of his ideas by many of his 'followers' in the counter-culture, pop psychology, social work, and family therapy.

Some coverage of the issues that I have described might be warranted in the article on family therapy or elsewhere - the issues have broader application to epistemology, politics, sociology, etc.

A lot of work needs to be done on all three articles, but at this stage I think they need to be kept - and kept separate. Marschalko (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I acknowledge that Sharktacos' comments recognize that 'systemic therapy' is a broader category than 'family therapy'. However in common usage they are often described as if they were synonymous, and within the therapy culture systemic therapy is often described as a subtype of family therapy. Marschalko (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Marschalko, I agree that family therapy and systemic therapy are not the same and did not with to suggest that we merge these concepts. My gripe here is that what is described on the systemic therapy page is not systemic therapy at all, what is described there is family therapy. Really I think we should replace the incorrect description on the systemic therapy page with the content from the systemic psychology which gives a correct description of systemic therapy.

The systemic psychology page does describe systemic therapy, but is not called systemic therapy there but systemic psychology. AFAIK systemic psychology is a term that does not exist. Are you making a case that it does? If it turns out to a legitimate term and not just a misnomer then I would suggest making the systemic therapy page redirect to it. --Sharktacos (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I partly agree with your most recent entry Sharktacos. You say again that what is described on the systemic therapy page “is family therapy”. I agree that it does not provide an accurate or comprehensive description of systemic therapy, but I would reject any imputation that what it describes is family therapy per se or in toto (although I'm not sure that you're saying that it is saying that).

With regard to your question about whether I am making a “case” for the existence of the term “systemic psychology”: there is no “case” to make – it is an irrefutable fact that it exists. It is a well-established term, as confirmed by a number of academic articles, courses, and books – a Google search will confirm this.

I agree that the content of the systemic psychology page is better than that of the systemic therapy page. However, again I don't think that what the systemic psychology page describes is systemic therapy in that - as I suggested in my previous entry - it is addressing more the descriptive aspects, and acknowledges only in passing the therapeutic application of those ideas. (I’m guessing that you might also find it more attractive as it recognises the influence of second-order cybernetics and post-modernism - although many would question whether those developments have challenged the fundamental tenets of systems theory as much as has been made out.) I would thus also oppose a redirect from systemic therapy to systemic psychology (although internal links between the two would be a small but useful start).

For now then, I think that the points in my previous entry stand. I think the best way to proceed would be to correct and expand the systemic therapy page, possibly by incorporating some of the material from the systemic psychology page (which is clearly the better of the two articles and is reasonably OK as far as it goes). As far as I can ascertain. the next best existing pages that deal with (subtypes of) systemic therapy are systemic coaching and Systemic Constellations. You may know of others that could provide guidance in this matter. Marschalko (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marschalko. Let me be more precise then: the systemic therapy page does not describe systemic therapy at all, it describes (rather poorly) family systems therapy which is much better described on the main family therapy page right here. Systems therapy grew out of family systems therapy, but includes other systems beyond the family (for example businesses). So I find the entire article superfluous (better described elsewhere) and misleading (describing the wrong thing). Would you agree with that, and if so how would you suggest addressing it? --Sharktacos (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That’s what I thought you were saying Sharktacos and I do agree with you. If needs be, I suggest gutting the whole page and starting again. My main point is that the concepts of “systemic therapy” and “systems/systemic psychology” should in principle be recognized as distinct – even if this means (for the time being at least) that the systemic therapy page is retained only as a stub and a collection of links (much as the family therapy page is currently). If you have any suggestions on proposed content (apart from just the existing content of the systemic psychology page) then I'd be interested to hear them.

I think that Mdd has made a good proposal on Talk:Systemic psychology. It doesn’t fully address your concern, but I think it would be a good start. Whatever comes out of this, you have started an interesting and important discussion. Marschalko (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I made a first pass at a re-write for the systemic therapy page. Still needs a lot of work, (ex: in lacks any info on praxis and methods at the moment) but it's a start.

Marschalko I will leave it to you to add any distinctions you wish to make between the systemic therapy page and the systemic psychology page since that seems to be issue of importance to you :) --Sharktacos (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)