There is much confusion in the family therapy literature about how a constructivist/constructionist epistemology translates into the actual practice of therapy. This study addresses the problem through a qualitative analysis of constructivist/constructionist literature nominated by constructivist/constructionist authors as being the best examples of therapy from this framework. The design utilized two methodologies for addressing this problem. A content analysis provided the method for extracting "the doing of therapy" from the literature, and grounded theory techniques provided a systematic method for grouping these units of analysis into coherent categories. / Five major categories emerged from the analysis: (1) The attitude of the therapist, (2) What should/should not happen in therapy, (3) What the therapist should/should not do, (4) Definition and utility of therapeutic concepts, and (5) The logistics of therapy. The first three categories provide a description of the core of the practice of constructivist/constructionist therapy with the latter two clarifying terms and practice strategies. The practice of constructivist/constructionist therapy as revealed in this study is then compared to theoretical assumptions and propositions for constructivist/constructionist therapy, revealing its strengths and weaknesses. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 54-11, Section: B, page: 5929. / Major Professor: Thomas E. Smith. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1993.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_77045 |
| Contributors | Rabalais, Brenda Martin., Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text |
| Format | 250 p. |
| Rights | On campus use only. |
| Relation | Dissertation Abstracts International |
Page generated in 0.0164 seconds