![]() However, we need to hear enough of a client’s story to have context for our questions, as well as to build trust and rapport. Toward the narrow base there is much less ‘water’-minimal extraneous detail and more internal experiences. At the top there is a lot of ‘water’-the unnecessary detail in a longer story. To a large degree we can modulate the efficiency of conversation based on what questions we ask our clients. Process: accessing the client’s internal experience and working through parts of it ![]() What is Content versus Process in therapy?Ĭontent: stories about what happened shared at length and with extraneous details While there is significant value in hearing a client’s story and being validating, particularly during initi al sess ions, you've likely experienced clients telling you unimportant stories with far too much ‘content’. The particular information you focus on with clients can be modulated by what approach you are using in that moment. Ideally, this convergence leads to a trusting alliance and engaging, vulnerable conversation. Therapy should be a collaboration: clients are experts on their own worldview, and we are (hopefully) experts in therapy itself. ![]() ![]() Providing thoughtful structure and guidance to sessions is not only useful but also ethical. Ideally, we’d get to this point in each session as soon as is reasonable and stay there as long as is useful. The advice here is not about how to cut stories off or when to be invalidating instead, I focused on how to deepen therapeutic conversations, access profound discussions, and move therapy forward. Yes, some stories from clients matter-even long stories can be important-but many are long-winded and unhelpful. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |