A discourse analysis of the initial negotiation of therapeutic parameters and the development of new problem descriptions, in two different psychological therapies

This thesis uses discourse analysis to compare systemic and cognitive-behavioural
therapies, in terms of, the process of initial negotiation between client and therapist
over therapeutic parameters, and the development of new problem descriptions. It
also compares the theoretical description of the application of each therapy with the
actual application of each therapy. The first section develops an argument for an
approach to process research which is based on bottom-up naturalistic analysis of
the way language is used in therapy. In doing so, it highlights the limitations of the
positivist process and outcome research traditions, and provides an account of the
range of established approaches to discourse analysis. The approach to analysis
used draws on traditions of conversation analysis and discourse analysis. Several
sub-themes are discussed within each of the two main analytic foci; negotiation of
parameters and development of problem descriptions. The final section summarises
the findings according to the analytic foci, and discusses the implications of the
findings for clinical practice, and topical professional and political developments.
Further indicated research and validity issues are also discussed.

This thesis supplied via ROAR to UEL-registered users is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication of any part of the material is not permitted, except for your personal use for the purposes of non-commercial research and private study in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission from the copyright-holder for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, for sale or otherwise, to anyone. No quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement.