Narrative Practice Key Learnings: Conversations that Highlight Unique Outcomes

White (2007) looks at the highlighting of unique experiences as a way of taking aspects of lived experiences that are perceived to be meaningful and using those as a part of the known and familiar storylines of our lives.  With this in mind, we then arguably forget a lot of components of our lives if we do not give them a specific meaning within the narrative.  These forgotten components are what White calls “out-of-phase experiences.”  The experiences have the potential to be quite important if they can be re-conceptualized by the individual as a “unique outcome” or “exception,” giving the individual an alternative storyline.

The role of the practitioner is thus to help find the significance of some of the out-of-phase experiences.  While the practitioner can take the lead of attributing meaning between the out-of-phase experience(s) and how they are a meaningful exception, this places the practitioner in a position of having to convince or sell the client on the worth and meaning.  This is a more dangerous path to take, as it imposes another individual’s meaning system on the client, and alienates the client by making the practitioner the author.  It furthermore removes the possibilities for the client and practitioner to engage in collaborative inquiry.

One of the key considerations in unique outcomes is thus the privileging of the client in the authorship of the narrative.  This means that the client will render specific out-of-phase experiences as significant.  In some ways, this helps build insight into the client’s understanding of self by providing them with a voice in their own lives.  Doing so can help increase familiarity in what the client gives value to.

The practitioner wants to be cognizant of the labels and other reflections the client has been subjected to throughout their life, as the goal is to provide out-of-phase experiences that counter the labels/reflections of others.

My understanding of the Trudy-Peter-Michael session is as follows:

• Explore the situation, and begin externalizing conversations.  Help the client find an externalizing label.
• Allow the client to describe their unique response in the given circumstance
  • Follow-up with a summary of the behaviour in the unique circumstance
  • Explore the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs that emerge from this unique outcome
  • Explore what allowed the unique outcome possible
• Is there reciprocity in relationships involved?
  • What has the change been about?
  • What allows the change to be possible?
• Thinking about what makes the change possible:
  • What has this change said about the client?
  • What does the change highlight regarding what is important to the client?
• Allow the client to develop a unique name for the unique outcome
• What client strengths, hopes, dreams, etc. are embodied in this unique outcome?
• Partake in a “therapeutic inquiry.”  This entails an exploration of what it would look like to move forward with the current reflections the client has partaken in.

White (2007) thinks of this as uncovering and allowing 1% of the client’s experience to help reshape their understanding of self.  The shift from focusing on a problem, to finding an alternative story though unique outcomes/exceptions, helps reshape the dominant storyline – becoming a foundation to reauthoring a conversation.

In this process, the practitioner then does not have to hustle their own interpretation of the narrative onto the client.  We can avoid having to:

• Provide affirmations
• Point out the positives
• Make attempts to reframe the thoughts

White (2007) uses four inquiry phases to help guide the process of uncovering unique outcomes.  They are as follows:

1. Inquiry 1: The negotiation of a particular, experience-near, definition of the outcome.
   •  The practitioner begins by inquiring into developments that have the potential to be rendered as a meaningful unique outcome from the client’s perspective.  This arguably requires a highly developed theory of mind and perspective-taking of the client’s identity that has already been richly described.
   • The client is then invited to describe the developments of the unique outcome and describe them in an “experience-near” way.  While experience-near is not directly defined, my interpretation is that the description is from the perspective of the client – how the developments were perceived in that moment of their life.
   • Have the client include the developments that took place.  The client can:
     • Give the unique outcome a name of their own choosing/wording.
     • Clarify their initiatives taken to that the story of the unique outcome is enriched.
2. Inquiry 2: Mapping the effects of the unique outcome
   • Here is where the practitioner can inquire with the client what the effects of the unique outcome were.  This can cover multiple dimensions/facets of the client’s life (such as home life, family relationships, self-concept, etc), and see how the unique outcome changed these dimensions/facets of the client’s life.
   • What the practitioner wants to do is bring the unique outcome into a sequence of developments that unfold over time – integrating the unique outcome into the storyline.  The practitioner is seeking to emphasize and secure the significance of the unique outcome in their life, and not have it as attributed to luck, aberration, or the result of others.
3. Inquiry 3: Evaluating the unique outcome and its effects.
   • Here practitioners support the client in evaluating the unique outcome and its effects or potential effects.
   • The development of meaning around what the effects do for a client can be drawn out.
   • The practitioner wants to allow the client to reflect on the developments and make a judgement on their experience.
   • The evaluation questions can be prefaced with some of the key effects that have been brought to light through the earlier exploration of the unique outcome.
   • Provide an opportunity for the client to speak about the complexities of the position that is being explored.  It is important to not assume the consequences of the outcome are only positive – be open to getting clarification and detail on all perspectives of the influence of the unique outcome on the individual’s life.
4. Inquiry 4: Justifying the evaluation
   • White (2007) argues that “why” questions should not be ignored.  While they have historically been viewed as raising the defensiveness of a client, they may have use in situations where they purposefully contribute to a client’s developing insight.  The question needs to be phrased in a non-threatening way.  This part brings to mind a curious collaborative inquiry.  To develop insight on reflections, one may consider something along the lines of “do you know why ____________ has led you to feel _____________?”
   • An alternative to a direct “why” question is an external “why” exploration.  These are invitations of a client to share stories that can provide an account of the “why?”  This may look something like “can you tell me about ____________ that would help me understand why ________________?”
   • The emerging editorials are a surface on which one can reflect and aid the development of responses.

Thinking back to intentional understandings and internal understandings, the exploration of internal understandings can be a radical process.  Go slow and allow people to develop their “why.”

White (2007) recognizes that “I don’t know” may be a common response because of the lack of internal understanding.  To address this, White discusses using a “similar case” circumstance to dive into how others may feel, and elicit a conversation on how the client related to the circumstance.  For children, a “guessing game” can be utilized.  In the guessing game scenario, parents and siblings are invited to guess why developments are preferred by the child.  If the guesses are wrong, the child is invited to discuss how they know the guess is correct or not the same as their own preferences.

In essence, each stage unfolds in a developing way – building on the curiosity and fascination of the previous stage.  fascination with previously trivial thoughts/feelings/beliefs/values creates an environment that can be engaging and open up an inquiry.  White notes several last thoughts on conversations that highlight unique outcomes:

1. The practitioner can not predict the outcome of the discussion at its onset.
2. There is often a blurring between the techniques that are being applied in a session.
3. The narrative process itself is not a cookbook – it is not orderly or linear.  It is not worthwhile to form questions beforehand.  Rather, it is better to go into a session with the right mindset to help the process unfold.
4. It is useful to link the lives of individuals around themes.  While White does not discuss intergenerational transmission, the themes can run in families.  When they do they may have an intergenerational component.  Careful use of intergenerational resilience may lend an opportunity to apply positive psychology concepts in practice.

References

White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY; W. W. Norton & Company