1. Research and dissemination.
Therapeutic Relational Professionalism
A Description of Different Approaches to Alliance Formation
between Psychotherapist and Client
Prepared by:
Jette Gørtz Smestad. Cand.psych. Aut
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….1
2. Alliance Formation based on the Contextual Paradigm ..............................................4
2.1 The Miller Group's Contribution to the Development of Alliance Formation
in Psychotherapy ....................................................................................................4
3. Alliance Formation based on the Relational and Contextual Perspective…………...6
3.1 Systemic Theory and Therapy’s Contribution to the Development of Alliance
Formation in Psychotherapy…………………………………………………………...6
4. Alliance Formation based on the Narrative Perspective……………………………....10
4.1 Narrative Theory and Therapy’s Contribution to the Development of Alliance
Formation in Psychotherapy………………………………………………………….11
5. Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 14
6. Literatura………………………………………………………………………………………..16
1. Introduction
The starting point of this project is a preoccupation of which factors that has an effect in the
meeting between psychotherapist and client in psychotherapy. As early as in 1936, Saul
Rosenzweig made a conclusion about the effects of various psychotherapies based on

2. relatively few studies. He concluded that all forms of psychotherapy work equally well and
made a parallel to the “Dodo bird verdict” (From Lewis Carroll:" Alice In Wonderland "):
"Everybody has won all must have prizes ". (Andersen, 2003, p. 65).
In connection to the Dodo hypothesis the question have been asked (Henry, 1998, p.128;
Wampold, 1997, p.167; Hougaard, 2009, p.211), why the controlled efficacy research use a
lot of resources on documenting that different methods have approximately the same
effect? An answer to this could be that differences between various methods have been
found for some medical conditions (Chamb & Ollendick, 2110) , but when recent scientific
studies have focused on measuring the effects of psychotherapeutic treatment of some
conditions like anxiety or depression, usually the basis for it has been a specific form of
psychotherapy for example cognitive behavioral therapy. Today cognitive behavioral
therapy is the most studied form of therapy and therefore has come to appear as the most
effective.
Most recent systematic reviews have concluded, however, that the differences in the effect
of psychotherapy have shown no differences or been small or of moderate practical value
(Hubble, Duncan and Miller, 2002, p. 6; Hougaard, 2009 p. 98). This has been interpreted
by many researchers as if all forms of psychotherapy work equally well, and that it is not the
specific theoretical considerations, the type of therapy or method that constitute the
effective factors in psychotherapy, but the so-called "non-specific factors" (Hougaard, 2009,
p.117; Andersen & Holme, 2002, p.13; Andersen, 2003, p. 65). Wampold has reviewed the
research results of the effect of treatment, and according to this, the effective factors in
psychotherapy are the following: (Note 1)
Alliance: 60%
Model and technigue
8%
"Alligiance factors"
30%
These results show that the psychotherapist’s behavior in therapy is regarded crucial to the
effect of therapy (Hougaard, 2009, p. 291; Hubble et al., 2002; Jørgensen, 2001, p. 455;
Jørgensen 2002, p 12). Moreover, it is considered beneficial for the effect of
psychotherapy, if the psychotherapist focuses more on his or her skills to form and maintain
positive therapeutic alliances with clients rather than solely focusing on learning the theory,
methods and techniques. This does not mean, however, that theories, methods and
techniques are not valuable just that they should not be the only or primary focus of
concern.
In the article: "To sider af terapeut-klient-forholdet” (Eng: Two Sides of the Therapist-Client-
Relationship), Torben Nielsen (2011, p.18) writes that it appears as if a good relationship

3. between psychotherapist and client as well as specific methods play a significant role in the
outcome of a psychological treatment.
A group of expert researchers (Webb et al., 2011) in the field of cognitive behavioral
therapy has investigated the role of the psychotherapist-client relationship in relation to the
outcome of cognitive behavioral therapy for depressed people. Basically, the group was of
the opinion that one should consider two sides of the therapist-client relationship. One side
is called the cooperative relationship and regards how well therapist and client can agree to
cooperate progressively in relation to the goals they have set together for the therapeutic
work and furthermore which methods should be applied to achieve this goal. The other side
is called sympathy relationship and regards how much warmth, sympathy and
understanding they both experience in their mutual interaction. With this assumption the
research team conducted two studies of cognitive-behavioral therapeutic treatment for
depression. The studies showed two things:
1. The cooperative relationship had at the beginning of the therapy great subsequent
impact on how well the therapy worked during the treatment. This was not the case for
the sympathy relationship.
2. The more progress had happened through the course of therapy, the higher was the
client's sympathy for the therapist at the end of therapy. For the sympathetic
relationship it rather seems to be an effect than a cause of an effective therapy.
(Webb et al., 2011, p. 282)
The conclusion of this study is that agreement on goals and methods as well as the client's
sympathy for the therapist are essential elements in relation to what works in
psychotherapy.
The focus of my project is the therapist-client relationship. Especially the therapeutic
alliance consisting of sympathy and consensus in regards to the goal of the therapy, the
method and the technique. The Miller Group has contributed with thoughts in relation to the
importance of the client´s assessment of both the progress in therapy and of the quality of
the therapeutic relationship. The starting point of this project is therefore the work and
thoughts of the Miller Group that concerns the factors, which they describe as being
important in the formation of the therapeutic alliance. In addition, this project will focus on
how systemic and narrative theory and therapy, which are the theories and therapies I work
with daily in my clinic, describe and implement formation of therapeutic alliance defined as
cooperative relationship and as sympathetic relationship. Based on this, the research
question is as follows:
How do systemic and narrative theory and therapy describe the factors, which the Miller
Group describes as being important in the alliance formation?
To answer the research question, the starting point of the literature search has been partly
the main body of literature in the area of systemic and narrative theory and therapy, which
was obligatory in my further training as psychotherapist in 2010 and 2011 at Inpraxis
(Denmark), and partly the main literature from the Miller Group. Besides books, I have been
searching in the recognized Danish Psychological Magazine of Psychology, the Danish
Royal Bibliotheca via the Danish Royal Library and in the databases: APA PsychNet,
Psykinfo and GoogleScholar.
Keywords: Dodo, what works in psychotherapy, therapeutic alliance, ORS and SRS,
systemic theory and therapy, narrative theory and therapy.

4. 2. Alliance Formation Based on the Contextual Paradigm
The Miller Group (Duncan, Miller and Sparks, 2000; Hubble, Duncan and Miller., 2002) has
been very interested in questions concerning what works in psychotherapy. They have
found evidence that the likelihood of increasing the effectiveness of therapy is greater when
therapy is consistent with the client's theory of change processes. The client is not the star
but the Director of the therapy. The client is the “engine” of change. (Duncan et al., 2000, p.
67). The Miller Group has encouraged therapists to make the client the primary agent of
change, and they have suggested that the client's assessment of progress in therapy and
his or her assessment of the quality of the therapeutic relationship should be in focus and
lead the therapist. According to this the group has been concerned with the development of
documentation in relation to evidence. Today evidence is very important, because the
requirement of evidence in psychotherapy has become more and more prevalent,
particularly to ensuring the quality of the psychotherapeutic work (Bargmann and Jensby,
2012 p. 8).
The method introduced by the Miller Group has a dual function consisting in being a
method of alliance formation, but also a method for documenting efficacy of psychotherapy.
Both areas are important and will influence each other. The effect of the psychotherapy will
depend on the cooperative relationship - which in the beginning of the therapy is of great
subsequent influence for how well the therapy works – and on the client's sympathy for the
therapist - the sympathetic relationship. It has been found that progress through the therapy
seems to add to the sympathetic relationship, so it is higher at the end of the therapy and
therefore tends to be a consequence of rather than a cause of effective therapy (Webb et al
2011, p.282).
The focus of this project is, however, factors related to the alliance formation. Which is why
the Miller Group’s description of the effect of psychotherapy will only be included in
connection to the description of formation of alliance.
2.1 The Miller Group's Contribution to the Development of Alliance Formation in
Psychotherapy
To document whether the therapy works, the Miller Group has developed a method: "Client-
directed, outcome-informed therapy," which focuses on how the client finds the therapy
"works". Via schedules the client makes assessments by reference to whether the therapy
has resulted in recovery and an assessment of the therapeutic alliance. Subsequently the
ratings are used to adapt the therapy to the client’s needs.
In order to continuously measure these factors in therapy, the Miller Group has developed a
measuring instrument in the form of two tables. One schema Outcome Rating Scale (ORS)
measures the client's benefits from the theory; the second schema Session Rating Scale
(SRS) measures the client's assessment of the alliance. ORS scores at the beginning of the
therapy session, SRS scores at the end of the session.
Outcome Rating Scale-form consists of 4 elements which in research have proven to be
the points of the client's life, which are influenced by therapy. (Henley and Miller, 2012. p.9),
- Individual well-being
- Close relationships (family and close friends)

5. - Social (school, work and friends)
- General well-being
According to the Miller Group the schema is useful to statistical calculation and makes it
possible for the therapist to get an idea of how many sessions he or she should expect to
spend on creating the first therapeutic change. Thus the schema has a dual function partly
as practice research and partly as therapeutic tool (Bargmann and Jensby, 2012 p.12 ), and
makes it possible for the therapist early in the process to become aware of whether it is the
right issues the therapy deals with and whether the therapy moves in the desired direction.
This insight allows for changing the therapeutic process and also allows for early in the
process to terminate any infertile therapy and refer the client to other treatments.
The consideration and assessment of the curve takes place in interaction between therapist
and client, and it is in the dialogue the determining of the curve is to be understood as well
as the identification of, whether the therapy should continue or be terminated. This ensures
a higher degree of understanding of the curve in interaction with the client's experience of
change/development rather than an understanding based solely on the therapist's statistical
understanding. The understanding of ORS curve and the use of it shall ensure that the
therapy is "Client-directed" - guided by the client's wishes, thoughts and opinions.
The use of ORS and the dialogue between therapist and client names as the dialogical
component (Andersen (2003, p. 270) - can thus engage the client because it makes it
visible that the client has a major responsibility as to whether the therapy works and a
responsibility regarding decisions, such as whether therapy should be adjusted, end or
continue as it takes. Furthermore, the dialogue helps to open up the exploration of the
client's understanding of change. Questions open up as: perhaps the client doesn’t think
that change must happen at the same rate as the therapist thinks? Perhaps the client sees
other elements of the therapy as progress than the therapist does? Thus the curve
becomes a starting point for a conversation and serves to that therapist and client can
reflect on the therapeutic process together, which also opens up to a higher level of
understanding of the client's experience of change/development. Dialogue on ORS curve
can thus be a central and essential part of the therapeutic conversation and often lead right
into the heart of some of the key themes for the client such as motivation, feeling stuck in
his/her situation, relationships with significant others, and work-related problems.
(Andersen, 2003, p. 271)
The Miller Group does not operate with phrases such as agreement about goals and
methods which are elements of the cooperative relationship. They believe that therapy
should be guided by the client's wishes, thoughts and opinions, that is be consistent with
the client's theory of change. This increases the probability of the efficiency of the therapy,
and according to Webb et al. (2011) the efficiency will have an impact on the client's
sympathy for the therapist and thus an impact on the formation of the alliance and the
therapeutic relationship. The second table developed by the Miller Group is dealing
specifically with the relationship between therapist and client.
The second table: Session Rating Scale consists of four points:
- Relationship
- Goals and topics
- Approach or method
- Overall

6. With this schema the client is given the opportunity to comment and express whether the
therapist in the session offers a satisfactory alliance. If the client evaluates the alliance
negatively this is taken up in dialogue immediately and furthermore with the opportunity to
talk about it in more detail in the next session - to get the opportunity to learn more about
what changes the client could wish for. This enables the therapist early in therapy to correct
the therapeutic alliance.
It is important that the conversations dealing with these issues takes place in an
appreciative way, so the client will come to understand, that his criticism is a help and a
valuable tool for the therapist to become a better therapist. For some clients, it may be
difficult to answer the questions, particularly in the first sessions; it may be difficult to have
the courage to answer honestly. A context with an open and secure atmosphere may be
helpful for the client. Furthermore, it can be helpful if the therapist underlines clearly that an
evaluation, positive or negative, is helpful for the therapist in an effort to improve the
therapeutic alliance. (Andersen and Holme, 2002, pr. 14; Andersen, 2003, p. 269)
3. Alliance Formation Based on the Relational and Contextual
Perspective
Systemic theory is based on the meta-theoretical basis of social constructionism. It is a
basic theory on how change can happen and on what is needed for people to change.
Social constructionism sees reality as a social construct. Especially our language and the
way we talk about things and the world are seen as important factors in the construction of
reality. This means that our stories and problems are created and developed through the
language we use in social interaction with others, and that the truth as such does not exist,
but can be dissolved partly through therapy. It also causes therapist’s presumed expertise
to be just one among numerous possible perceptions.
The central aspects of systemic therapy is that, which is created between the actors in an
interaction and that the therapist uses the language to create changes in reality. An
understanding of the context and the conscious use of this knowledge is crucial to create
meaning and thus change. (Haaland, 2007, p.36/38)
Over the years there has been a development from classic systemic therapy, which among
other things operated with an approximate objective observer, towards a systemic therapy
with a focus on the social context and culture (Rasmussen, 2012, p .27). Furthermore, there
has been a shift away from the formation of hypotheses made exclusively by the therapist
system and towards "dialogical hypotheses" in stead. This means that the most important
thing in therapy is how the therapist and client together develop a language which is rooted
in the both therapist’s and the client's experiences, understandings, knowledge and skills.
(Torsteinsson, 2012, p. 291)
In my daily work I practice this newer understanding of systemic therapy. Below I will
therefore describe the newer systemic understanding of how changes are made and how
systemic theory relates to the formation of the therapeutic alliance related to the
cooperative relationship as well as the sympathy relationship.
3.2 Systemic Theory and Therapy’s Contribution to the Development of Alliance
Formation in Psychotherapy.
According to systemic theory communication will always take place within a context and
thus provide a framework for our understanding of the information exchanged. Our
interpretations, our way of understanding information and our construction of stories

7. depends on the context. Systemic theory has thus the relational and the contextual
perspective as well.
In systemic therapy the therapeutic process starts by talking about the client's description
and definition of the problem and what the client thinks about it. The therapist will not define
the problem and steer the conversation towards the therapist’s prior understanding of the
problem. Furthermore it is necessary that the description of the problem is considered fluent
and has a workable character implying that all involved parties can understand the
description. The actual work does not consist in achieving a goal, a specific content or
outcome or moving in a certain direction. The work consists in a process that evolves to
open up rather than close down or limit - and to mobilize rather than immobilize. (Anderson
and Goolishian, 1988, p.388).
The goal of the systemic therapist is to participate in a conversation that loosens up so that
fixed meanings and behaviors can broaden, shift and change (Anderson and Goolishian,
1988, p 381). In the conversation and the dialogue all meanings, understandings and
interpretations are negotiable and tentative. The constant exploration of the many
descriptions of the problem and of its systemic causes makes it possible for the client and
the therapist to co-evolve the “not-yet-said” and thereby co-create and co-develop new
themes, new narratives and new stories. (Anderson and Goolishian, 1988, p 381/383/384).
To facilitate the conversation to move toward large-scale production of new information,
understanding, interpretation and hence new stories, the systemic therapist uses queries,
where the concept of appreciation is of utmost importance. Appreciation has always been
closely associated with systemic theory and method. In systemic therapy the therapist is not
considered to be an expert and therefore is not in a position to predict, instruct or control a
specific change in a client. Instead the therapist interfere (Note 2) the client´s realizations
and mental understandings to create change. This is done with a special kind of
appreciation containing more than accommodating and accept. In the systemic theory the
concept also consists of active linguistic appreciation, emphasis and articulation of the
resources of the client system, skills and stories.
Systemic theory has several ways of using the language to highlight and give voice to the
client´s resources and capabilities such as these become visible through the client´s story
during the therapy. One way is the use of appreciative questions; another is the use of
positive reformulations and "retelling" of the client´s existing, dominant and dysfunctional
understanding. The purpose is to create new understandings and new meaning in order of
creating new stories that will allow the client new possibilities, hope and positive self-
esteem. The function of appreciation is thus partly to elicit positive emotions such as hope,
values and self-awareness and partly to create a possible conceptual framework, a context
in which the formation of new meaning can occur (Søholm and Juhl, p.11,).
To stimulate reflection, new perspectives and new hypotheses a special interview technique
is needed (Søholm and Juhl, p.15). One element in this interview is Circularity, which
involves switching from a preoccupation with the problem of etiology in a linear causal way
to having a curiosity related to the meaning associated with the circularity of the client´s
problem Circular questions do not examine the problem. They explore the relationships,
connections and correspondences with differences and patterns in the various explanations
and descriptions that the problem consists of, and this exploration takes place with a
curiosity that opens up new possibilities, new understandings and thus therapeutic
development.

8. In systemic thinking of communication and the concept of appreciation it is very important;
that the therapist, in the receiving position, understands what the client says and does. This
is very basic regard to appreciation: "How can I /the therapist understand what underlies
what the client says and does"? It is important that the therapist understands what the client
says and does in a sense is "logical" according to a given set of premises and values. This
understanding will enable the therapist to create a foundation on which it is possible to meet
the client and thus establish more constructive conversations as well as cooperation.
According to Thorkild Olsen (2008, p.4) appreciation in systemic theory is both a
philosophical concept and a practical method consisting of minimum two main directions.
One direction is appreciative inquiry based on the insight that it is through language that we
create the reality in which the therapist will be able to focus on what makes sense and on
what works, on hopeful dreams and desires and on the client´s resources and competence.
The second direction consists of a more existential approach to appreciation, and stresses
that human beings only can grow if we have access to the appreciation of our lives.
Appreciation of this understanding means to be seen, and it is therefore essential for the
therapist to see the client (as a significant other). Seeing the client is basis to create the
foundation for change. (Olsen, 2008, p.4).
The therapist's role in the therapy is thus extremely important and in this context, domain
theory is a very useful tool. Domain theory was originally formulated by the Chilean
philosopher and biologist Humberto Maturana and later developed by Cechin, Long, Little
and Cronen. Domain theory includes all systems and points out that in all communication
systems, in principle, there are three basic domains (contextual factors). The domain theory
is thus a context clarifying model in which human acts of speech are classified into three
domains which are inter-related and thought of as the domains where the acts of language
unfold.
The first domain is called "production domain" or "domain of action. When we speak from
this domain, we speak related to that part of the world where we are governed by laws,
norms and rules (society affects our behavior). This is where the framework for our work is
set and where from responsibility is placed. It is here views are broken: “who was the right /
wrong”? It is here decisions are taken – What is a right/wrong solution? - , and tasks are
resolved. This is where we act. In this domain the understanding is linear and Uni-verse.
The second domain is called the "personal domain" or "aesthetic domain". Here is the
personal, private background - the experiences from life and upbringing. It is here the moral
/ ethical values, ideals, religion, cultural background, perceptions of beauty and harmony
has its place. It is her we take personal positions. Thorkild Olsen (2008, p.5) also call this
domain "My-verse" - as it is a place from which I relate myself to the production domain in
terms of, what I do or do not like, which is connected with personal well-being and self-
esteem. There is also uni-verse in this domain but not in relation to right and wrong. This is
an aesthetic dimension based on criteria such as beautiful / ugly, ok / not ok. Appreciation –
described as an existential relation- is related here, but the more appreciation you get, the
more you are seen, the less are you centered in your personal domain, because
appreciation make it possible to face the world and open up and be flexible.
The third domain is named the “reflection domain”. In this domain it is possible to be in an
observer position for itself. It is the room for reflections and dreams. Here is multi-verse:
many versions of reality and many different truths and perspectives and different ways of
viewing the world. Here multiple explanations of various phenomena exist and various

9. viewpoints are considered equally valid. Disagreements are welcome here and no
decisions are taken. As a way of understanding the therapist uses the circular form, thinks
out loud and listens attentively. The systemic ideas, models and methods are used with the
intention either to establish better decisions or production in the production domain or to
provide space for personal reflections in relation to one’s own actions or attitudes. The
dialogue in this domain may occur slowly, but experience has shown that the time needed
to move in this domain can be tremendously effective. (Olsen, 2008, p.5).When the domain
is handled professionally; it can lead to better quality of communication, understood as a
move away from fixation towards opening up possibilities instead.
In real life it is not possible to identify the domains apart, they always exist
simultaneously. One of the domains will, however, emerge as a key to what is going
on. In psychotherapy, the domain theory can be used as a tool that provides concepts
for investigating which linguistic domain the client is in at any given time. This insight
is very useful for the therapist in order of performing professionally in the therapeutic
context. (Søholm and Juhl, p. 8). When communication in therapy takes place in for
example the reflection domain, more creative ideas, more combinations and multiple
viewpoints can lead to the possibility of a greater overview, a greater understanding
and knowledge of relations and to appropriate action. (Strand, 2003 p.740)
Based on the above, it can be said, that to apply systemic method you need an
understanding of the concept of appreciation and the concept of context, and that the
concept of context reflects that systemic theory is primarily a communication
perspective. This implies that a text can only be understood in its con-text. For the
therapist it means opportunities in relation to "reading" the context, that is, to clarify
the context and constantly ask for it or make up hypotheses about it. Another thing in
connection to context is the ability to “set the context”, that is, make the context
common, which is significant, because the more common and obvious the context is,
the more possible it is for everyone to attend and contribute appropriately. Both of
these roads are the ultimate keys in working with conversations. (Olsen, 2008, p.5)
The research question of this project was: “How do systemic and narrative theory and
therapy describe the factors which the Miller group describes as being important in the
alliance formation?" To answer this question it can be said, that systemic theory and
therapy has no defined categories which the therapist can take advantage of in practical
therapeutic work or in measuring of effect. The therapeutic work does not consist in
achieving goals, in specific content, outcome or movement in a particular direction. The
theory and therapy is more preoccupied with change, alterations and how change happens.
In the therapy no distinction is made between cooperative relationship and sympathy
relationship; the focus is on co-development, which includes elements of both types of
relationships and which in turn partly influence one another and also is one other´s
condition. This is expressed in the concepts of dialogue, appreciation and context.
In systemic therapy the client's definition and description of the problem is recognized as
well as what the client in this regard would wish. The recognition invites to cooperation and
dialogue in which the language is a breeding ground for changes and alterations. In relation
to development, appreciation is fundamental, as the approach to appreciation - to be seen,
and to understand that what the client says and does is "logical" from a given set of
premises and values - is the foundation on which it is possible to meet the client, and it’s
from this foundation the conversations and the co-development can be constructed.

10. Because the therapist does not possess expert knowledge, the dialogue will invite to
cooperation. The therapist's knowledge is just one among many others, and thus do not
rank above the clients knowledge, but is a contribution in the Multi-verse, a contribution to
opening up, to creating new understandings, new meanings and new stories. The dialogue
is not possible without appreciation - the cooperative relationship and the sympathy
relationship go hand in hand.
The domain theory - the context clarifying model – can be used by the therapist in regard to
recommended courses of action, for example in relation to how the therapist can invite the
client to move towards the reflective domain by offering more appreciation, which can open
up to openness and flexibility.
In systemic therapy no measure is made to clarify whether the client thinks the
conversations are about the right issues, whether the therapy is moving in the right
direction, or whether the therapist provides a satisfactory alliance. However many systemic
therapists will ask the client about these things regularly:"Are we talking about the right
things?", “The things we are talking about, do they make sense to you?”,"How does it make
sense?" In addition having a feedback function related to the therapy, these questions also
offer the client space to express new meanings, understandings and perspectives. Hereby,
it sometimes becomes visible, that change and alteration may appear in different ways,
than the therapist had in mind. On the other hand if the client does not feel that the
conversations have included the right topics, the questions can invite to a dialogue about
what more the client could need. These questions do not directly open up a dialogue about
the therapeutic alliance. Often this kind of issue will not even be articulated in this type of
therapy. However, sometimes these questions do open up discussions concerning whether
the client thinks that the therapist offers a satisfactory alliance. If the client evaluates the
alliance negatively, this is taken up in dialogue to learn more about what changes the client
could possibly wish for. This dialogue also provides the therapist the opportunity of
rectifying the therapeutic alliance that might have come awry from the start or perhaps have
moved on to an unhelpful place, where the client does not feel seen. In this respect, the
therapist will be able to invite to a dialogue both by reading and setting the con-text.
4 Allliance Formation based on the Narrative Perspective.
One of the founders of narrative theory and method is the Australian Michael White.
Just as systemic theory the narrative theory rests on the meta-theoretical basis of social
constructionism and is a basic theory within the frame of reference of how change can
happen and what can be done to help people change (Wermer and Mortensen, 2009, p
127). The method is based on post-structuralism, which debates the idea of deeper
underlying truths that can be identified by science.
In the narrative approach the key element is the notion of people seeking to create meaning
and coherence in their lives. To create meaning, our experience is tied together into stories,
and the stories create the framework for our experience and organize and give a pattern to
the experience. Thereby our stories create structures, make a whole, coherence and
meaning for us. We live our stories, and the story of the story is guiding for individuals.
(Haaland, 2007, p.40).
The main idea behind the narrative method is that a man can tell countless kinds of stories
about his life, and that therapist and client together can create alternative stories about the
client’s life. This provides a new perspective on the client's past, present and future. In

11. narrative therapy the therapist is not the more knowledgeable, but the person responsible.
The person who takes on the task of listening and asking questions, which allows the client
to move in increasing progression from something that is well known and familiar, to
something which is possible to know and do (Svarer, 2012, p 222; White 2010, p. 267)
4.1. Narrativ Theory and Therapy’s Contribution to the Development of Alliance
Formation in Psychotherapy
In narrative therapy, it is important for the therapist to work on creating a context in which it
will be possible for the client to deconstruct the problem story, so that there is room for
richer and alternative descriptions and narratives by which the client's favorite story, that is
the story that is consistent with the person's values, intentions and beliefs, may be more
accessible. The focus in narrative therapy is on promoting a conversation form that helps to
build a community where the client's abilities, knowledge and desires are appreciated, as
narrative therapies have shown that an appreciative perspective, focusing on what works,
on strengths, resources and dreams of the individual is mediating a positive development
(Epston, 2000, s17; White, 2006, s. 179).
One of the key ideas behind narrative therapy is also that when people are given the
opportunity to define their own condition in words, which express their own experience,
people are at the same time given the opportunity to define their own world; they are given
the opportunity to name their problem and tell their own story, and thus they become agents
in their own lives. (Holmgreen, 2007, p.14).
In the meeting with the client, one of White's key points is, that the therapist must deal
openly and allowing the concrete situation to dictate the form of the therapy. Thus
sometimes challenges, difficulties, dilemmas and deadlock is related to the issue of the
therapist's position, which in turn is related to questions about the therapist's influence, the
therapists understanding of how change is created and the therapist’s understanding of
power and discourses. In this context, it may be helpful for the therapist to navigate the
conversation related to what White described as possible positions. In conversations
humans continuously position themselves and the other through the language and the
actions that we use. Knowledge, awareness and attention to these positions in the therapy
allow the therapist to invite and challenge the professional considerations in relation to own
position and ways of working. (Wermer and Mortensen, 2009, p.129/130).
The four modes in possible positions are:
Centered Position of Influence. In this position the therapist's knowledge and experience
is raised above the client’s more local knowledge and experience. The therapist is the
expert on the client’s life and work situation. The therapist's knowledge is then going to
provide the frame of reference for understanding the problem that the client presents. The
result of this can be, that the client is separated from his own sensations and experiences
of his life (Morgan, 2011, p. 63; Wermer and Mortensen, p.130).On the other hand,
centering may be useful and not oppressive, if e.g. the therapist, after having asked for and
negotiated for permission, is capable of formulating own experiences and ideas related to
and in extending of a joint exploration of the client's doubts and dilemmas, for then explicitly
to ask for the client's perception of the usefulness of the experiences (Wermer and
Mortensen, 2009, p.133)
Centered Position without Influence. In this position the therapist constantly incorporates
the things that have been told into his own a priori frame of reference. It can also be that the
therapist quickly forms an assumption of what the client thinks of a particular word or
phrase and therefore does not investigate the use of these, or that the therapist is so

12. preoccupied with his own method and therefore "misses" what the client asks help for or
think might be helpful to explore (Wermer and Mortensen, 2009, p.135).The reasons for this
may be that some of what the client is talking about is something the therapist knows from
his own either personal or professional life, whereby the therapist quickly makes a
conclusion about what is important for the client. This causes the therapist to direct the
conversation through questions related to his own conceptual framework. If a conversation
most of the time occurs in this position the result may be, that the client does not feel that
the conversation is about something meaningful, but that the talked is about something
completely wrong.
Decentralized Position without Influence. In this position, the therapist will be on hold
and will not directly or indirectly attempt to influence the direction of the therapy. Instead,
the therapist will focus on the client's wishes and the client's perception of the situation
without contributing to the development of new stories or other angles to the presented
situation and problems. According to Werner and Mortensen (2009, p.137) the therapist’s
inactivity can end up confirming and supporting the client’s in advance given stories and
versions of how things work. On the other hand, if the client is very stuck in the problem, it
can be helpful, if the therapist for a while consciously is in this position, since the client may
only be ready to deal with dreams and resources, when he or she has had a chance to talk
about the problem and its consequences.
A Decentered Position of Influence. The client is here considered as the expert of his
own life, and therefore the client's knowledge, skills, preferences and desires are in the
center of the therapy. The therapist does not set the agenda but gets influence by listening
and asking carefully structured questions, by structuring interrelated connections and by
reacting in a way so that the client's skills, knowledge and aspirations for the future will be
more nuanced and more richly described and thus can be activated in relation to the current
problems. (Morgan, 2011, p.74). By listening and asking questions this way, the therapist
tries to bring the alternative and preferred stories and knowledge forward. To be decentered
with influence is the therapists preferred position in narrative practice and according to
Morgan (2011, p.87) this position foster cooperation with the client, and this particular form
of cooperation maintains the focus that the client is the expert in his own life.
In therapy the theory of the possible positions can be extremely helpful for the therapist,
thus the knowledge and awareness of positions makes it possible for the therapist through
the conversation to put himself in a meta position, a position of being "not knowing" but
investigative to the client's expressed frustration, concerns, fears, desires, dreams,
perspectives, etc. All of which could generate some room for reflection (Morgan, 2011, p.
72; Wermer and Mortensen, 2009, p. 138). The therapist deliberately uses his influence to
create contexts where favorite stories about the client's identity are to be made more
robust, which in turn will impact on the development and changes on the behavioral level.
To help these conversations narrative therapists have developed many practices, such as
White’s map of narrative therapy practice, naming the problem, externalization and
conceptualization, which among other things are meant to create a distance to the problem
and thus invite the promotion of the client's sense of identity and personal agency /
capacity.
By working in accordance to the basic premise that change cannot be created through
induction, one of the therapist's options for change is to look at himself and e.g. look at the
various positions he holds in a particular therapy session to challenge his professionalism in
relation to his own position and ways of working usefully. Such a focus would make visible

13. what the therapist actually does in the actual therapy session and also, the possible effects
of this and the possible consequences.
The research question was: How do systemic and narrative theory and therapy describe the
factors which the Miller group describes as being important in the alliance formation?
Among other things can be said, that they have many similarities. Narrative theory and
therapy has no categories, which the therapist can use in the practical therapeutic work or
in measuring the effect. The therapeutic works consist not in achieving goals, specific
content, outcome or in moving in a certain direction, but is more concerned with the
question of how change and alterations can happen. In narrative therapy there is no
distinction between cooperative relationship and sympathy relationship. The focus is on
promoting a conversation form that helps to build a community where the client's abilities,
knowledge and wishes are appreciated, since the assumption is that an appreciative
perspective, focusing on what works, the strengths, resources and dreams of the individual,
is mediating a positive development. In this understanding the term community also
includes elements of cooperative relationship and sympathetic relationship as well.
In narrative therapy the client sets the agenda himself. It is the client who describes and
defines the problem, and it is the client’s knowledge, skills, preferences and desires which
are in the center of the therapy. By having knowledge of and by paying attention to the
possible positions in therapy, it becomes possible for the therapist through the conversation
to put himself in a meta position. When the therapist thus finds himself in the position
decentered with influence, where the therapist does not consider himself to be in
possession of expertise of the client's life and problems, it enables him to be "not knowing",
but rather listening and exploratory in regard to the client's problems as well as his or her
wishes and dreams, etc., and thus make room for reflection. In addition, it also will cause an
invitation to partnership where the client and therapist jointly converse in a way that allows
the client to develop fuller and alternative stories. Thus it also applies to narrative therapy
that language invites to cooperation and dialogue as well as creating a breeding ground for
changes and alterations.
The theory of the possible positions thus contains a description of how change is stimulated
by the ways the therapist listens and asks questions, structures and reacts in ways that
stimulate change and alterations. The therapist's conscious efforts to use his influence to
create contexts, where the favorite stories about the client's identity are made more robust,
is what stimulates developments and changes on the behavioral level. Moreover, this
particular way for the therapist to be present in the therapy results in an invitation to
cooperation, which means to build a community that in turn is mediating a positive
development. So, when the narrative therapist is in the preferred position of being
decentered with influence, then the cooperative relationship and sympathy relationship
goes hand in hand.
In narrative therapy there is no measuring in relation to whether the client thinks the
conversation is including the right topics, whether the therapy is moving in the right
direction, or whether the therapist provides a satisfactory alliance. Many narrative therapists
will continually ask the same kinds of questions as described for the systemic therapists.
These questions have a feedback function in relation to the therapy, but at the same time,
they also offer space to express new opinions, stories and perspectives. The questions do
not directly lead to a dialogue about the therapeutic alliance, and therefore maybe it is more
random, whether the client's assessment of the alliance is articulated. In cases where it
appears, that the client is not completely satisfied or perhaps even unhappy with the
alliance, or where the client might have some specific requests to the therapist, the

14. narrative therapist, by positioning himself decentered with influence and by listening and
asking questions, maybe can help the client to formulate these things and then the therapist
and the client can talk about this and jointly work on it.
4. Conclusion
The research question of this projectis: How do systemic and narrative theory and therapy
describe the factors, which the Miller Group describes as being important in the alliance
formation?
Systemic theory and therapy's preoccupation with how change and alteration occurs is
focused on co-development, which includes elements of cooperative relationship and
sympathetic relationship as well. This therapy uses a specific form of appreaciation which
invite to cooperation and dialogue, and it is in the dialogue that the client can express
whether there have been changes and alterations as well as relate to the therapeutic
relationship.There is no set procedure for this in systemic therapy, so it will depend greatly
on the individual therapist, but also of the individual client, whether this is a theme in the
therapy or not. You could say that dialogue causes that the possibility of this is present, but
it may not explicitly be expressed in the individual session or process.
The same can be said of Narrative theory and therapy. The focus here is to encourage a
conversation form that helps to build cooperation containing an appreciative perspective, a
perspective that is considered to be mediating a positive development. In systemic as well
as in narrative therapy there are no described categories, which the therapist may use in
the practical therapeutic work or to measure the effect. These theories and therapies are
more concerned with how the client describes himself and defines the problem. As I see it,
using the Miller Group’s ORS schema at the beginning of a conversation does not deprive
the client the opportunity of describing and defining his problem. It is my experience that
some clients might find it helpful to be presented to the four elements. It can be helpful in
order of remembering to tell other things than what the client just had in mind. Furthermore
it can be a help to clients, who are experiencing confusion resulting in not knowing where to
start the presentation of their problem/problems or who find it difficult to verbalize their
problem/problems. It can also be helpful for the therapist and enable him to invite to a
dialogue concerning issues that might not otherwise become visible. The schema
additionally, via the score, provides a measure of the client's experience of the degree of
impact. This is perhaps articulated in systemic and narrative therapy, but it is not
necessarily continuously made visible in the therapy. In systemic and narrative therapy
change and alterations are described through the language, which does not necessarily
exclude talking about the size of a change and alteration, which can be an eye opener and
very helpful for many clients, and it is also what the ORS-table measures and displays
visually to both the client and the therapist.
Regarding the SRS schema and its elements, it can be said, that if the client scores low on
the table, it is a feedback message to the therapist saying that therapy has not offered what
the client thinks he needs. The therapist can then invite the client to make suggestions
about methods, themes or ways to be met, which would be more helpful for the client.
Focus here is on what can be done differently in therapy, so that the therapy is more fitting
with the client's needs. As described, many systemic and narrative therapists will (with
appropriate intervals) ask whether the conversation makes sense to the client, just as most

15. systemic and narrative therapists together with the clients will evaluate the session at the
end of this. Although the client may not think the session has been helpful, many systemic
and narrative therapists may probably still consider whether some changes have happened
due to the dialogue in the session. Neither party will be the same, both will have
changed.This understanding implies that even if the client does not immediately believe that
there has been a change, something new to the client may still have been said during the
therapy session. This approach and focus can help to raise the client’s awareness of the
fact that a change indeed has happened.
Finally, it can be said that in relation to cooperative relationship and sympathetic
relationship, both systemic theory and therapy and narrative theory and therapy offer some
constructive and useful suggestions to therapeutic approaches - due to their understanding
of contextual challenges, the domain theory and the theory of positioning in conversation.
Thus, the domain theory as well as the theory of positions can be a helpful analytical tool
for the therapist in the specific therapeutic situations. Partly in relation to the development
of change in the client, and partly in relation to any specific challenges the therapist may
experience in specific situations with a client. A focus on the domain theory as well as the
theory of positions will then enable the therapist to navigate on two levels in the specific
therapy session. One level is the concrete level dealing with specific questions and the
responses to these. The other level is the meta level dealing with for example challenges in
communication, perhaps because of the therapist’s possible attempt (for various reasons)
to bring the client to a certain domain/an interpretation/a subject etc.This can be something
the client does not want or is not able to handle, and it can be a sign of disagreement about
goals and methods. Insight into and the using of domain theory as well as the theory of
positions can strengthen the therapist's interpersonal skills, alliance skills and
conversational skills and thus strengthen the therapist's skills in relation to the formation,
maintenance and development of a collaborative relationship. Therefore it is of almost
importance, that therapists continuously work to master these skills (Miller, 2013 (a), s. 23;
Miller, 2013 (b), p.36).
In this regard, Bargmann (2013, p.141) points to differences in therapist’s alliance skills as
a way of explaining the differences between the most effective and the less effective
therapists:
"Clients treated by the most effective therapists get better up to 50% more often and
drop out 50% less than clients who are treated by less effective therapists." (Bargmann,
2013, p. 141; Wampold et al., 2005; Bargmann et al., 2012)
In order to develop a collaborative relationship and (equally important) to continuously
develop as a therapist, it's not just about getting better "technical" and e.g. practicing
various questions, but also about having a deep sense of what is helpful in relation to a
specific problem experienced by the therapist in relation to specific clients. In this respect,
all three theories presented in this project may be extremely useful to the professional
therapist as work and analysis tools.

16. Literature:
Andersen, Susanne Østervig (2003). “Udviklingen af den terapeutiske alliance – indførelsen af ”den dialogiske
komponent””. Fokus på familien 31
Andersen, Susanne & Holme Mogens (2002). ”Med klienten ved roret”. Psykolognyt nr. 21/
Anderson, H., & and Goolishian, H.A (1988). “Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and Evolving
ideas for clinical theory”. Family Process, 27, p 371-393.
Bargman, Susanne & Jensby, Tang, Laura (2012): “Hvordan kan vi dokumentere, at det vi laver virker?”
Systemic narrative Forum. # 4
Bargmann, Susanne (2013). “ Familieterapiens fremtid – terapeuten mellem evidenskrav og udvikling”. Fokus
på familien, 2, 2013
http://www.susannebargmann.dk/uploads/7/3/2/0/732009/handouts_nykbing_sj_fit_oplg.pdf
Chambless, D. L. & Ollendick, T. (2001). ”Empirically supported Psychological Intervention: Controversies and
Evidence”. Annual review of Psychology, 52, 685-716
Duncan, B.L, Miller, S.D., & Sparks, J. A. (2000).The Herioc Client. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 4.Printing
Epston, D. (2000). ”Jag är er en björn!” In White, M & Epston, D.: Narrativ terapi- en introduction. Mareld.
Sverige. Kapitel 1.
Henley, R.C.A, Miller, S.D (2012).” Possible Applications of Psychotherapy Outcome Research to Traditional
Chinese Medicine”. Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine. Volume 7, Issue 1 Article 18.
Henry, W. P. (1998). “Science, Politics, and the Politics of Science. The use and misuse of empirically
validated treatment research “.Psycholotherapy Receach. Volume 8, Issue 2, 126-140)
Hougaard, E. Psychotherapy (2009). Psykoterapi. Teori og Forskning. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag., 2.
Udgave, 3. Oplag
Hubble, M.A., Duncan, B.L, Miller, S.D. (2002). The Heart & Soul of Change. American Psychological
Association. Washington, DC, sixth printing 2002
Haaland, K.R. (2007). Løft og narrative I professionelle samtaler .Akademisk Forlag
Holmgreen, Allan (2007): ”Forord” in: White, Michael: Kort over narrative landskaber. Hans Reitzels Forlag. 1.
Udgave, 3. Oplag.P.9 -18
Jørgensen, C.R. (2001). “Skal effektforskningen fortsat primært fokusere på tekniske faktorer? Håndtering af
terapeutfaktorer i effektforskningen 2.” Matric. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Psykoterapi nr. 17.4. P. 453 - 476
Jørgensen, C.R. (2002). ”Behandlingsrelationen i centrum”. Psykolog Nyt nr. 16. P 10 -15
Miller, S & Hubble, M. (2013). “Vejen til mestring”. PSYCHOTHERAPY Networker MAY / JUNE 2011.
Systemisk Narrative Forum.2013/2. P.20 – 25 (a)
Miller, S. & Hubble, M. (2013). “Vejen til mestring”. 2. Del. PSYCHOTHERAPY NETWORKER MAY/JUNE
2011. Systemisk Narrativt Forum. Sommer 2013/3. P.32-37 (b)
Morgan, Alice: (2011): ”Terapeutens position i arbejdet med familier og deres børn”. In: White, M.& Morgan, A:
(2011): Narrativ terapi med børn og deres familier. Akademisk Forlag, København. 1. Udgave, 3. Oplag
Nielsen, T. (2011). “To sider af terapeut-klient-forholdet”. PsykologNyt nr. 20, P 17 – 18
Olsen, Thorkild (2008). “Systemisk Metode – Et stærkt perspektiv på forandringer og samtaler”. Villa Venire
A/S. Avis Venire, 3. Udgave. December p.1/4/5

17. Rasmussen, S. A. (2012). “ Magtens øje: En Kafkask process”. Fokus på Familien. Nordisk Tidsskrift for
Familie- og Relasjonsarbeid. Årgang 40 Nr. 4, p. 327)
Strand, H. (2003): Konsultativt arbejde. Psykologisk Pædagogisk Rådgivning. 6
Svarer, Trine (2012). ”Tilbage til livet”. Fokus på familien. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Familie-og relationsarbeid.
Universitetsforlaget. Årgang 40. nr. 3, 218 -237
Søholm, TM & Juhl, A.: Den systemiske terapeut. Attractor kurser. www.attractor.dk
Torsteinsson, Vigdis Wie Torsteinsson (2012). ”Kommentar til artikkelen ”Underbygging av praksisbasert
kunnskap”. Av Sissel Reichelt og Jan Skjerve”. Fokus på Familien. Nordisk Tidskrift for Familie- og
relationsarbeid. Årgang 40 Nr.4, p. 288
Wampold, B. E. (1997). “Methodological problems in Identifying Efficacious Psychotherapies”. Psychotherapy
Reseach, Volume 7, 21 -43
Wampold, B. E., & Brown, G. S. (2005). ”Estimating Therapist variability: A Naturalistic study of outcomes in
managed care”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 914-923
Webb, Christian A.; DeRubeis, Robert J.; Amsterdam, Jay D., Shelton, Richard C.; Hollon, Steven D.;
Dimidjian, Sona. (2011). “Two aspects of the therapeutic alliance: Differential relations with depressive
symptom change”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 79 (3), Jun, 279-283.
Werner, A. og Mortensen, A (2009). “Narrativ inspireret supervision”. I Syv fortællinger om narrativ praksis.
Red: Anne Sofie Møller Sparre og Katrine Dall Jørgensen. Psykologisk Forlag.
White, Michael. (2006): Narrativ Praksis. Hans Reitzels Forlag, 1. Udgave, 1. Oplag
White, Michael (2010): Kort over narrative landskaber. Hans Reitzels Forlag. 1 Udgave, 3 Oplag
Notes:
1. http://www.susannebargmann.dk/uploads/7/3/2/0/732009/handouts_nykbing_sj_fit_oplg.pdf slide p.10;
Wampold, B. (2001). The Great Psychotherapy Debate. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. The key concept disturbance is mainly treated by the famous Milan Group (Cecchin, Boscolo,
Prata&Selvini-Palazzoli), the terms of which has contributed to the understanding of the therapist's
role, eg in relation to "disrupt" the client's awareness and mental perceptions. (Søholm and Juhl s. 14)