Welcome to the 2013 Editions

Mark McKergow , Kirsten Dierolf , Anton Stellamans & Carey Glass

What can we know about Solution Focus? How do we con- duct research into our subject matter most appropriate- ly? The classic paper by Paul Cilliers featured in this edition of InterAction talks about what we can know. It makes the point that a “modest position” between “absolute knowledge” and “relativism” is most appropriately adopted when you are deal- ing with complex systems. We assume that conversations, help- ing conversations, and interactions to draw forward an organ- isation are best understood as instances with a complex nature. This poses a conundrum for those of us who want to research it: if something cannot be grasped or described in its entirety – how can you research it? Can you formulate hypotheses and test them? What can you know at all? And how can you make your research into the complexity of helping conversations (knowing that you are dealing with complex systems) relevant for a public that often falls into either the neo-positivist trap (treating complex-meaning problems as molecular problems) or the esoteric trap (going with hunches, anything goes and refusing to do any serious research at all). Here are the kinds of research into SF that have so far been conducted:

Research into how SF works

Harry Korman, together with Janet Bavelas and Peter de Jong, have researched what happens in an SF conversation on a micro-level and contrasted it to what happens in other kinds of helping conversations. There are very few approaches which have started looking at what happens in such fine granularity. This research has enabled us to recognise crucial features of an SF conversation: the practitioner retains positive statements of the clients and uses the clients’ language.

Research into the effectiveness of SF

Entering the realm of outcome studies, SF researchers have to veer into the territory of the positivist. To convince our colleagues who don’t share our assumptions about the complexity of the issue at hand we have to pretend we share theirs: for example that classifying mental illnesses by diagnoses is relevant, that two therapists using the same approach do the same, etc. We enter their framework to show that SF works. Alasdair Macdonald has collected many outcome studies and metastudies and it is safe to say that SF works as well as other forms of therapies – but does so faster than others.

Research into the community

In a Wittgensteinian sense “meaning is defined by its use” – so also what “SF” or “Solution Building” is cannot be defined and written in stone. Our Clues are an attempt to do justice to this. Also Adam Froerer and Elliot Connie have conducted a “Delphi Study” asking SF experts what “Solution Building” means and walking them through a process of discussion.

Philosophical thought

How does SF fit with other approaches? The school of thought started by Ludwig Wittgenstein is currently expanding into new trains of investigation, such as discursive psychology, enactive cognition, embodied and extended mind, deconstruction, and narrative practice. How can these help and bolster both how the world sees SF work, and how we think about it and do it? Steve de Shazer sometimes said (very firmly) that ‘all research is a political act’. It’s time we faced up to this, took the advice of Ken Gergen at EBTA 2011 in Dresden, and connected with a much wider group of researchers, academics, practitioners and policy makers. SFCT’s first Research Conference with the University of Hertfordshire in September 2013 offers a first step in this direction. We hope you will be able to come, participate and contribute.

This issue has an external focus in the shape of the late Paul Cilliers, who has died suddenly. Paul was a philosopher and former electrical engineer with a keen interest in language and complex systems. He was one of the first people to agree to join our Editorial Advisory Board. You can read his classic paper ‘Complexity, Deconstruction and Relativism’, which is much more useful than it might sound – being a guide to modest positions and their value. There is an extensive intro- duction to the paper to guide you through it. Mark McKergow also recalls meeting Paul in 2008, where they discussed many aspects of interest to SF workers.

There are also three interesting per-reviewed papers, the first by Ken Gergen. Mark McKergow met him at the Conversation-Fest 2013 conference in Houston, and we are excited to present a specially extended version (extended by Ken himself) of his plenary speech on ‘Relating the personal and the public’. This is a fine example of the latest thinking in social construction and the discursive focus. JennyClarke and Shakya Kumara write about the many ways in which SF can be introduced into an organisatuon and Stefanie Widmann explores the research around “Co-work” (two consultants working with one team or organisation), a yet rather under- researched, very beneficial way of working to which an SF stance can contribute a lot.

We have two interesting case studies. Paolo Terni takes us through the scenario of an SF retreat for executives in a phar- maceutical company. University professor Kat Barclay introduces us to how she uses SF to coach her PhD students.

Rayya Ghul provided the research review with many inter- esting finds. You’ll also see a description of the latest results of our peer review process: Riku Jarvinen coached an Associ- ation for the Unemployed and Annette Gray helped create one team that respects one another and enjoys coming to work to effect business unit culture change at a professional services firm. Of course, there are also a few really interesting book reviews – if you read a book that you want people to know about or have written a book that you would like us to review: please contact us.

As many of you already know, John Sproson, an SF enthu- siast and great contributor to the SOLworld community, passed away this year. We remember him fondly by appreciat- ing his life and work in an obituary.

Towards useful organising in the SF world

One topic of debate currently exercising the SF world is the question of how communities of SF practice in organisations, education, therapy and social work are best organised. You might also ask the equally valid question whether SF – a practice and philosophy that values diversity and emergence – should be organised at all.

Current situation of organisations representing SF practice

There are many different forms of organisation: for example, the SOLworld community (which has no membership, no bank account, no governance structure apart from the steering committee which is open to all interested), the SFCT (offi- cially constituted as a non-profit organisation with explicit governance, membership, bank account and publicly available financial statements), EBTA and SFBTA (which are techni- cally only their Boards) which support annual conferences and offer research grants, local associations like UKASFP and business alliances like IASTI.

Important questions

Here are a few hopefully useful questions that we have been asking ourselves: how should we move forward now that the leadership given so naturally by Steve and Insoo has gone? What will enable useful progress? How will we harvest and support the value of the diversity that exists in the different communities of practice? Of course, SFCT cannot and would not wish to answer these alone and develop a future perfect or miracle picture by ourselves for the whole community of SF practice in organisations, therapy, education and social work – but talking together could make that happen. However, we did put our heads together and came up with some ideas around what could be usefully done with the energy and enthusi- asm that is around.

SF research library

Currently there is no repository of available knowledge on SF to make available SF writings, foundational literature for researchers and to act as an archive of writings, audio or video material. Alasdair McDonald collects relevant papers and studies and summarises them on his website, SFBTA provides access to Steve and Insoo’s commercial videos and Kirsten Dierolf has made available a full bibliography of their writings. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if any doctoral student or researcher had one place to turn to for access to SF material? Research is one of the main ways in which an approach can move from the stage of “a rumour” to full credibility as a philosophically and empirically well-founded (and organised) practice. A “repository” does not necessarily mean that there is a need for one archive with gate-keepers, with the danger of it burning down or losing all its servers and thereby its material. A first step could be a collection of what exists, some hub / database / library catalogue that would list where you can go to access relevant literature, CDs and DVDs around SF practice.

Legal representation with regards to trademarking of SF

There seems to be a common understanding and acceptance of the idea that the words “Solution Focus” or “Solution Oriented” and the tools of our trade like the miracle question or scaling belong to no one person or organisation. However, there are cases in which people attempt to trademark these words for their own businesses – we are currently aware of three such cases. SFCT has contacted some of them, phoned the relevant authorities to determine the legitimacy of such claims and a peaceful resolution has been found or is being developed. At the moment we can do this because we know lawyers who are willing to donate their time and professional expertise pro bono and we haven’t yet had to take anyone to court to prevent them from trademarking words that we think belong to everybody. Having an overall organisation with the ability to fund this could be helpful should this issue arise. Also, if there were an official organisation of “all things SF” it would be much harder for anyone to claim that they came up with the idea and much easier for the trademark registration authorities to reject any such claims.

A legitimate contact for other organisations

The fact that SFCT is a democratic officially constituted organisation has enabled us to establish valuable contacts with people in similar and different fields. We have been able to contact and exchange ideas with people at universities, in philosophy, in complexity research etc. Also other approaches take us more seriously and InterAction continues to provoke interest from other fields. SFCT acts as one contact point for SF practice in organisations – we can imagine that a similar structure would be useful for many other fields as well. For example, currently when legislators want information about the validity and evidence base of SF therapy, there is no real place to turn to. We imagine that having an organisation to represent SF therapists internationally could be very helpful and facilitate the accreditation of SF therapy in many countries. It could collect experience from countries in which SF is an accredited approach, make argumentation accessible to interested law-makers, collect funds for international advocacy etc.

A platform for exchange for SF practitioners

There are currently many platforms for exchange for SF practitioners: the SOLUTIONS-L listserve, the SOLworld ning-group, the SFCT Facebook and Linkedin groups, the SFT-list, the EBTA ning group, local lists like neloko in Germany, SF in Canada Linkedin group, UKASFP discus- sion group, private discussion groups like Coert Vissser’s Linked-in group and IASTI, which is apparently planning a platform for its members’ graduates. Having one central place for exchange for SF practitioners in all applications or one place per application that could cross-reference would be a fantastic resource for all. It would also be helpful if whoever is thinking of developing another plat- form thought about whether it offers something new and usefully different, something that does not exist already in other places. Of course, there will always be useful addi- tions and new ideas and we welcome these!

Moving forward

There are many ways in which we could start to move forward on these possibly useful ideas. What will be crucial is keeping a balance between retaining what works and doing differently what does not work. Of course, what we currently have “works” at some level, and we have to avoid the trap of repairing what isn’t broken. However, when we look at the potential that SF practice has for making the world a better place and the desire for more recognition of many SF practi- tioners, improvement is possible. It might not be “broken” – but neither, for example, is the situation of our coaching clients. Their lives are working well AND they could be better and we help them do it. Something like an international federation of officially constituted SF communities of practice could be one way in which what is working in the different organisations is retained while the potential to move forward toward the above-mentioned goals is realised. Getting together and developing further what “could be better” – maybe around the above mentioned parameters: official legal representa- tion, support of research, repository of information, contact point for accreditation officials, etc. would be one possible step. SFCT is willing to support and collaborate with all organisations which want to further SF practice in any field and we would love to be able to discuss possible ways of moving this forward.

Volume 5 Issue 2 Editorial

TO IMAGINE … is one of the most powerful forces in human endeavour and one that is in the essence of SF. Ten or more years ago many people started to imagine; there were thoughts and dreams at various SOLWorld confer- ences, glimmers of possibilities and ideas from which grew a network of conversations that led to the emergence of InterAc- tion.

This edition celebrates the community’s 10th publication and five years of InterAction. It seems extraordinary to have been a small part of taking the brilliance of Steve’s and Insoo’s therapeutic approach and translating it into an entirely new field of organisational work. Creating a journal stamps the success of that worldwide endeavour. We should not underestimate the transition that has happened here. The ideas of one field have been moved into another not through a few researchers tucked away in a university laboratory but by many people seeing the potential and acting on it. It is the practical accessibility of the approach, its philosophical understanding of people as experts in their own lives and the vision of those many people that has allowed this transition to take place and given it power.

InterAction has provided a voice for that creative work. The goal was to have a journal that continues to give SF in organi- sations academic credibility. However many of the contributing population are not academics but consultants in organisational environments. To create this journal they have made the time to write academic pieces, researching, develop- ing and refining them. When we have had the opportunity to work with them on these pieces it has been a learning experi- ence, similar to attending a conference in which you hear people’s thoughts first hand and have an opportunity to expand your own thinking.

Witnessing the variety of applications that has been found for SF in the organisational world has been akin to being a kid in a candy shop. It is fantastic to have the journal as a reposi- tory for this collection of applications, accessible on-line as well as in print. This includes using SF for classical business training in influencing skills, business unit culture change, team development in Japanese banks, enhancing SF coaching with the use of photography, and a quintessential business application in this edition that looks at the interface between SF and LEAN. Who’d have imagined….

It is the contributors who have been responsible for the evolution of InterAction. They have presented us with debates around the limits of the journal and the degree to which it should only publish articles that sit within interactional and post-structural approaches. They have also evolved the content such as the Research Review from short abstracts to insights for the SF practitioner, or reviews that research a particular theme of interest. Whether introductions to classic papers or book reviews, contributions are made with a whole heart. So to all 72 people who have contributed in print from around the world an enormous thank you.

Coert Visser Gwenda Schlundt Bodien Peter Szabó

Paolo Terni Lina Skantze Lorraine Kennedy

Yasuteru Aoki Ben Furman Svea van der Hoorn

Alasdair Macdonald Sabine Indiger Julie Gregory

Gale Miller Adie Shariff Alison Abington

Margaret Eaton Alan Kay Haesun Moon

Chris Iveson Rayya Ghul Dominik Godat

Paul Jackson Sofie Geisler Nick Greer

John Brooker Stanus Cloete Harry Korman

David Weber Michael Durrant Antionette Ogelthorpe

Fredrike Bannink Yuzuru Yoshida Steve Smith

David Shaked Mike Brent Steve Blades

Barry Winbolt Dave Hawkes Christine Kuch

Susanne Burgstaller Annette Gray Colin Coombs

Nora Bateson Peggy Holman Graham Buchanan

Rani Meerabi Pooran Marika Tammeaid Harvey Ratner

Rom Harré Monika Houck Gil Greene

Peter Sundman Björn Johansson Kati Hankovsky

Felix Hirschburger Daniel Meier Stephanie von Bidder

Jenny Clarke Peter Röhrig Janine Waldman

Leah Davcheva Jeff Matthews Renilde Vervoort

Kenneth Gergen Shakya Kumara Stefanie Widmann

Kat Barclay Tricia Lustig Kirsten Dierolf

Mark McKergow Anton Stellamans Carey Glass

To the Board of SFCT and the Editorial Advisory Board thank you for your ongoing support and particularly for initially having taken the plunge. And finally a heartfelt thank you to Jenny Clarke, for her generosity, graciousness and modesty in doing so much behind the scenes to help with proofing and get the print copies mailed out.

We look forward to the 11th edition that will incorporate papers from the recent SFCT research conference in partner- ship with the University of Hertfordshire.

Tributes for the 10th Edition: My film, An Ecology of Mind, opens with a quote that says “The major problems in the world are a result of the differ- ence between the way nature works and the way people think.” (G. Bateson) – So how does nature work? Well, first of all it does not sit around analysing problems, looking for pathologies, dwelling on obstacles – instead, it carries on however it can, operating on its capacity to be operational. A root does not stop at a rock in its path and think, “Forget it, this is pointless, I am unworthy, the rock is to blame, it’s impossible …” No, It simply figures out another way. That’s why this journal is important, it keeps us thinking like roots. Nora Bateson

Congratulations to the Editorial Team for ten years of success in publishing InterAction. The journal has opened new oppor- tunities for discussing, debating and assessing SF thought and practice. It has become an important context for constructing the future of the SF world. Gale Miller

I think InterAction is a remarkably accessible journal which means that I read at least some of every edition before it is absorbed into the impressive but rarely touched Journal book- case. Its accessibility is no accident; each edition is designed with a number of clear offers: something old (a classic paper), something new (a description of an ‘on the ground’ project) and something blue (as in bluestocking) – an academic paper. Something for every mood. And it doesn’t come too often. Chris Iveson

I particularly like the seriousness and the consistency of the journal. Harry Korman

InterAction presents itself as a highly professional production. I look forward to reading it every time. The range of papers is good; the Classic Paper is intriguing, especially for those new to SFBT. A look at recent research highlights the many possible uses. The papers about specific projects always produce some new idea that one may use. For those in the SF world, InterAction is a valuable addition to their knowledge base. For those outside the SF world, it illustrates the sheer variety of applications for this way of working and thinking. Alasdair Macdonald

Is it 5 years already? InterAction, like SF itself, still feels new and full of hope and expectation; and yet, it’s embedded as a trusted resource I look to on a regular basis. The combination of case-studies, peer reviewed papers and ‘classic SF papers’ offers a rich diet of ‘how to …’, ‘why to …’ and ‘do you remember to …?’ Particular key contributions for me were Paolo Terni’s paper on ‘SF Interviewing Protocols as Evolutionary Algo- rithms’, Stanus Cloete’s paper on ‘Team Tease’, Dave Hawkes’ paper on SF and Martin Heidegger, Mark McKergow’s interview with Nora Bateson, and Kathleen Barclay’s paper on using SF coaching with Doctoral students; not to mention papers on Victor Frankl, Workplaces where you wanna go, Positive Psychology, or any one of (what I’m realising all over again) is a very long list of outstanding material on SF thinking and practice. I also appreciate that InterAction is available online, as I usually end up giving my hard-copy to someone, and don’t always get it back. Thanks to the editorial team for bringing together such a focused and motivating journal, and for giving a voice to SF practice in organisations. I’m already looking forward to the next edition. Steve Smith

This much-needed journal saw the light five years ago and, I hope, continues to inspire us for many more. Ben Furman