# data[].attributes.headline
Deutschsprachiges Kursangebot, um Mikroanalyse für die eigene Praxis zu nutzen

# data[].attributes.subject
Deutschsprachiges Kursangebot, um Mikroanalyse für die eigene Praxis zu nutzen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ELAN is an annotation tool for audio and video recordings.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

A sample from the ACLEW project.

A sample from the ACLEW project.

Description: With ELAN a user can add an unlimited number of textual annotations to audio and/or video recordings. An annotation can be a sentence, word or gloss, a comment, translation or a description of any feature observed in the media. Annotations can be created on multiple layers, called tiers. Tiers can be hierarchically interconnected. An annotation can either be time-aligned to the media or it can refer to other existing annotations. The content of annotations consists of Unicode text and annotation documents are stored in an XML format (EAF).
Main features and characteristics of ELAN:

provides several ways to view the annotations, each view is connected to and synchronized with the media timeline

supports creation of multiple tiers and tier hierarchies

supports Controlled Vocabularies

allows linking of up to 4 video files with an annotation document

media support

builds on existing, native media frameworks, like Windows Media Player, QuickTime or VLC

support for audio and video formats depends on operating system, high performance media playback can usually be achieved

technical

written in the Java programming language

distributions available for Windows, macOS and Linux

open source, the sources are available under a GPL 3 license

Supporting agencies, sponsors, programs and projects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Intro Release notes Documentation Download Citing Support Resources ELAN is an annotation tool for audio and video recordings. Screenshot 1 Screenshot 2 A sample from the ACLEW project. A sample from the ACLEW project. Description: With ELAN a user can add an unlimited number of textual annotations to audio and/or video recordings.

# data[].attributes.body
Inkl. eine Sammlung, wie Mikroanalyse ihre Praxis beeinflusst

# data[].attributes.headline
Was bringt Mikroanalyse für die tägliche Kommunikation

# data[].attributes.subject
Was bringt Mikroanalyse für die tägliche Kommunikation

# data[].attributes.body
Ein Gespräch mit Elfie und Dominik

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hosted by Ira MollayMusik: Macaroon 5 by Audionautix Mut-Talks Folge 23

Aufgenommen am 16. Juni 2021
Schnitt: Mina Yousefzai

Im Gespräch mit Elfie Czerny und Dominik Godat, Expert*innen für Mikroanalyse und Lösungsfokus

Wie weit sind die Klassiker der Kommunikationstheorie heute noch gültig und relevant? Wie weit fördern oder behindern sie gelingende Kommunikation und positive Veränderung? Kommunikationstheorien bauen stark auf Metaphern auf, oft geborgt aus der Technologie, die sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten rasant verändert hat. Im Gespräch beleuchten wir die Auswirkungen dieser Veränderungen auf unsere Sicht auf Interaktion. Elfie und Dominik sprechen aus ihrer umfassenden Erfahrung mit dem Einsatz der Mikroanalyse: eine videobasierte, ins Detail gehende Erforschung von Face-to-face-Gesprächen. Diese fördert eine gänzlich neue Sicht zutage: In jedem Moment ko-kreieren wir ein Gespräch und tragen somit auch gemeinsam Verantwortung für das Ergebnis. Das Bild der Einbahnstraßen von Senden und Empfangen weicht jenem von synchron stattfindendem, laufendem Kalibrieren auf das Gegenüber. Auch die Art, wie wir zuhören, hat erstaunlich großen Einfluss auf den Verlauf eines Gesprächs.

Ein kurzer Trailer:

Darüber spricht Ira Mollay mit Elfie Czerny und Dominik Godat in diesem Mut-Funken:

Shownotes:

Brauchen wir Mut zum Du? Die Historie der Kommunikationstheorie - Bavelas, Watzlawick & Co Alles neu: die Interaktion in der Mikroanalyse Gemeinsam eine Geschichte konstruieren Kann man durchs Zuhören dumm werden? Doch senden und empfangen? Unsere Metaphern prägen unser Weltbild Kalibrieren und dreistufige Kommunikation Empathie und gutes Abholen Die Brillanz des Gegenübers Auf die Lebendigkeit horchen Szenen aus Therapiesitzungen Implikationen für die Kommunikation von Zukunftsmut Mehr über Mikroanalyse erfahren 0:00 1:10
3:45
5:40
8:00
9:50 Und what about the Sender-Empfänger-Modell?
12:00 Was die Video(-analyse) möglich gemacht hat
19:50 24:00
27:30
31:00
35:00
Gemeinsam die Welt verändern, in Beispielen
45:00 Interesse als lenkendes Element
48:00 50:20 55:20
59:50
1:02:32
1:08:15
1:10:00
Abschluss

Der Video-Podcast in voller Länge:

Audio-Podcast-Version:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Weiterführendes:
mut*macht Puzzleteilchen 4.2.3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Webcast: Mut zur Interaktion - Die Mutmacherei

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hosted by Ira MollayMusik: Macaroon 5 by Audionautix Mut-Talks Folge 23 Aufgenommen am 16. Juni 2021 Schnitt: Mina Yousefzai Wie weit sind die Klassiker der Kommunikationstheorie heute noch gültig und relevant? Wie weit fördern oder behindern sie gelingende Kommunikation und positive Veränderung?

# data[].attributes.body
De Jong, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Korman, H. (2013). An introduction to using microanalysis to observe co-construction in psychotherapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 32, 18-31.

# data[].attributes.body
(hier:) Moment zu Moment Untersuchung des Dialogs um die Besonderheiten der Interaktion (noch genauer) zu beobachten  und zu beschreiben

# data[].attributes.body
Harry Korman nahm in Budapest an einem Workshop teil und aus einem Moment heraus erklärte er, was wir über 'Fomulationen' im Dialog wissen.

# data[].attributes.body
2014 schrieb Peter Szabó für die Zeitschrift InterAction eine Besprechung der damals zugänglichen und für PraktikerInnen als relevant anmutenden Beiträge

# data[].attributes.body
Korman, H., Bavelas, J. B., & De Jong, P. (2013). Microanalysis of formulations in solution-focused brief therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and motivational interviewing. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 32, 32-46.

# data[].attributes.body
im Gespräch mit Elfie&Dominik

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wie Ihr Zuhören Ihre Gespräche beeinflusst | Leadership Network Lucerne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Autor*innen: Elfie Czerny & Dominik Godat "Zuhören ist wichtig." Obwohl diese Aussage in Führungskreisen seit Längerem zirkuliert, wissen die wenigsten Führungskräfte, was beim Zuhören wirklich geschieht. Oder wissen Sie, wie Sie mit Ihrem Zuhören in Gesprächen das, was gesagt wird, beeinflussen?

# data[].attributes.body
Beavin Bavelas, Smock Jordan, de Jong, Korman. The theoretical and research basis of co-constructing meaning in dialogue

# data[].attributes.body
im Gespräch mit Elfie&Dominik

# data[].attributes.body
Die Umstellgeschichte von Jocelyne Korman in Peter Szabó's gleichnamigem Buch
S. 53ff

# data[].attributes.body
Microanalysis of positive and negative content in solution-focused brief therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy expert sessions

SS Jordan, AS Froerer, JB Bavelas - Journal of systemic Therapies, 2013 - Guilford Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sara SmockJordan ¹ , Adam S.Froerer , Janet BeavinBavelas ²

¹ Texas Tech University.

² Illinois School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University, Chicago.

³ University of Victoria.

This project was supported by a seed grant from Texas Tech University. Special thanks go to Christine Tomori, who provided details of her analysis system and to Jennifer Gerwing, who developed the statistical analysis. Fuller details of procedure and results are available from the first author.

Address correspondence to Sara Smock Jordan, Ph.D., Applied and Professional Studies, Broadway and Akron St., Room 260, Human Sciences, Box 41250, Lubbock, TX, 79409-1210. E-mail: [email protected]

³
Abstract

The models of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) differ in their primary focus: problem solving versus solution building. These theoretical differences imply dissimilar practices, including the content of the therapeutic dialogue. Specifically, CBT sessions should include more talk about negative topics in clients' lives such as problems and situational difficulties, whereas SFBT sessions should focus on positive topics in clients' lives such as strengths and resources. We tested whether expert practice reflects these differences in the models. A reliable microanalysis revealed that demonstration sessions by three experts in each model differed significantly in the expected directions: negative content was significantly higher in CBT than SFBT sessions, and positive content was significantly higher in SFBT than CBT sessions. There was also a significant tendency for clients to respond in kind (i.e., negative therapist content was followed by negative client content, and positive therapist content by positive client content).

Cited by

, , , . (2020) Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the O'Kelly Women's Beliefs Scale. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy 22.
Online publication date: 7-May-2020.

, , , , , . (2020) The Effect of Solution-Focused Group Counseling Intervention on College Students' Internet Addiction: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17:7, 2519.
Online publication date: 7-Apr-2020.

. (2019) A Microanalytic Case Study of the Utilization of 'Solution-Focused Problem Talk' in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy 47:4, 244-260.
Online publication date: 13-Aug-2019.

, , , . (2017) Solution Focused Brief Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Summary of Process Research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 43:1, 16-30.
Online publication date: 19-Oct-2016.

, . (2016) The Magic Wand Question and Recovery-Focused Practice in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 29:4, 164-170.
Online publication date: 26-Oct-2016.

. (2016) Solution-Focused Sculpting. Journal of Systemic Therapies 35:3, 30-41.
Online publication date: 22-Nov-2016.

, , . (2016) Social work students' reflections on a solution-focused approach to child protection assessment: a qualitative study. Social Work Education 35:2, 158-171.
Online publication date: 15-Dec-2015.

. (2014) Thematic review of family therapy journals in 2013. Journal of Family Therapy 36:4, 420-443.
Online publication date: 19-Oct-2014.

, , . (2013) An Introduction to Using Microanalysis to Observe Co-construction in Psychotherapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies 32:3, 17-30.
Online publication date: 14-Nov-2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microanalysis of Positive and Negative Content in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Expert Sessions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sara SmockJordan 1 , Adam S.Froerer , Janet BeavinBavelas 2 1 Texas Tech University. 2 Illinois School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University, Chicago. 3 University of Victoria. This project was supported by a seed grant from Texas Tech University.

# data[].attributes.body
im Gespräch mit Elfie&Dominik

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kommunikation heute: Haben sich Watzlawick & Co. geirrt? | Leadership Network Lucerne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Autor*innen: Dominik Godat & Elfie Czerny Das Sender-Empfänger-Modell sowie die 5 Axiome der Kommunikation beeinflussen seit mehr als 50 Jahren, wie über Kommunikation gesprochen und wie Kommunikation gelehrt wird. Und dies, obwohl neuere Forschungsergebnisse einige dieser Ideen in Frage stellen. Haben sich Watzlawick & Co. also geirrt? Was wissen Sie über Kommunikation?

# data[].attributes.body
Opportunities: Organizing the solution-focused interview

L Taylor, J Simon - Journal of Systemic Therapies, 2014 - Guilford Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LanceTaylor ¹ , JoelSimon

¹ Fitting Solutions, Cochrane, Alberta, Canada.

² Center for Solution-Focused Training.

Address correspondence to Lance Taylor, Box 619, Cochrane, AB, Canada, T4C 1A7. E-mail: [email protected]

²
Abstract

In solution-focused brief therapy, the client is considered the expert in identifying his or her hopes and goals. The interviewer's role is to facilitate the articulation of hopes and the building of these hopes into change. This article shows how each client action presents multiple opportunities for solution-focused therapists to perform their role. Microanalysis of actual therapeutic dialogue, by two collaborating practitioners, reveals how opportunities are identified, how options for solution-focused responding are generated, how the preferred opportunities and responses are selected, and how rationales for the particular selection may be usefully shared and compared. The most practical application for this study of opportunities lies in the continual refinement of solution-focused interviewing skills in the contexts of training, supervision, and perpetual learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LanceTaylor 1 , JoelSimon 1 Fitting Solutions, Cochrane, Alberta, Canada. 2 Center for Solution-Focused Training. Address correspondence to Lance Taylor, Box 619, Cochrane, AB, Canada, T4C 1A7. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Abstract In solution-focused brief therapy, the client is considered the expert in identifying his or her hopes and goals.

# data[].attributes.body
im Gespräch mit Elfie&Dominik

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I had a beautiful (and quirky) dog, Cookie, who joined many of the online classes I taught as she practically lived on my lap until she crossed the rainbow bridge at her good old age. People often asked what breed she was and it was a mouthful: Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. It is so long that even the breed name is officially abbreviated as CKC. Each time I introduced her, it seemed rather amusing that a cute little lap dog would have such a serious brand.

And here I am once again feeling that way introducing the beloved map we've been using in our coach training in the last two years or so. It's a simple (and possibly easy) map with a serious name with somewhat good reasons (see the posts Good Reason #1, and Good Reason #2 for more).

This map is inspired by the work of the international microanalysis associates, Joel Simon, and Lance Taylor who taught me to focus on making the co-construction visible when I coach and teach by inductively examining how we respond in interaction.

We hear this not only in dialogues that happen in a coaching setting but other ordinary conversations among friends, colleagues, and families. There seems to be an inherent timeline in our narrative. Here's a little excerpt from my conversation with Andrew who was going for a major change in his career.

I have been wanting to make this move, and now I feel that it's the right time. I used to be very anxious about confronting people but obviously, not anymore. I used to worry about how people might think or feel about me, and that took some time to get over. And now this opportunity came up a bit earlier than I thought and I started to panic a bit. But, oh well, you could never be fully ready, right? (Excerpt from Surfing the Landslide, 2016 )

What might you say here? Wait, before we think about what we might say next, what did you hear? What intrigues your next response - whether a statement or a question or a smile or all of the above? If we were to look at what Andrew said in terms of timeline, what did you hear that he said about his past, and what about his future? Where would you plot them on this horizontal timeline?

In a conversation like coaching that can be a bit more polarized than other ordinary conversations, the content of people's narrative can be mapped on a spectrum between good stuff and not so good stuff. As you can imagine, the good stuff is what people want to see continue, increase, and grow in their life: interactions, moments, experiences, thoughts, decisions, attitudes, feelings, and hopes that people want more of in their life. The opposite end is the not-so-good stuff that people want less of. Borrowing from the work of Microanalysis of Face-to-Face Dialogue (MFD), these can be termed Positive Content and Negative Content. Going back to what Andrew said, how might you map what he said?

As you may have noticed, mapping the content may not be as clear as the timeline. Partially because we are only looking at the written text here void of other audible and visible acts of his meaning, and perhaps we have more room for making inferences when we are trying to map, or judge, if the content indicates good things or not-so-good things in someone else's life. But you get the gist of it. Borrowing from Korzybski (1933), it is a map after all, not the territory.

Putting the timeline and the content together, voilà, we have the quadrant. For now, let's call them: Positive Future (Q1), Positive Past (Q2), Negative Past (Q3), and Negative Future (Q4). Simple enough?

In coaching, which quadrant(s) should a coach focus on? Which quadrant(s) would be most useful? Without overthinking it, most coaches answer Q1 (Positive Future). Yes, yes, Q2, Q3, and Q4, they are all useful although some may not be necessary. Whether you think Q1 or any other quadrants, the question isn't about which quadrant, but more so about are we doing what we say we are doing?

One of the most profound lessons I learned from MFD is watching how questions work. As Healing & Bavelas (2011) said, "All questions are 'loaded questions'; the practitioner's choice is how to 'load' them with presuppositions that will be useful to the client." Clients often accept our presuppositions and they orient toward what we ask for.

Let's consider the following popular opening questions that you can easily find on YouTube. What are the presuppositions? Which quadrant are they orienting our clients to look? How might that function?

Tape after tape, our clients cooperated by going where the questions directed their attention to. These unchallenged presuppositions were accepted as a mutually understood common ground to stand on. That orientation happens in the beginning, it happens in the middle of it, and it happens throughout the conversation with our gestures, mhms, formulations, and questions. After all, all we can do is orienting, not moving, the client toward what they want more of. That's the hard part of the easy work of coaching.

As mentioned earlier, the DOQ is developed as a tool with a specific intention. We have found this to be a useful learning tool when used for observation and reflection. Observation needs an object to watch - a conversation in this case - and reflection requires making sense of what we notice.

Inspired by many practitioners we've met on the way, the quadrants are named this way:

When taught as a concept without practice, this model carries a significant risk of reducing the sophisticated dialogic process to a clunky two-by-two. Pull out your old tape if you have one, record a new one with your phone, and sit and observe:

How are your questions orienting your clients?

Map your client's responses on the map as much as you can preserving their language.

Out of all the building blocks on the map (or not), which ones did you respond to? How come? How did you respond?

After your response (however micro or macro), what happened to the client's narratives and utterances? Does it shift from one quadrant to another? Does it stay?

What are some other ways of responding in each of the quadrants? (See Opportunities paper by Joel Simon and Lancy Taylor for this idea)

I hope this is useful and usable in your coaching conversations for many of you.

Now, listen around, you'll hear it.

Reference: Healing, S., & Bavelas, J. (2011) Can Questions Lead to Change? An Analogue Experiment. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 30 (4), p.46).

I had a beautiful (and quirky) dog, Cookie, who joined many of the online classes I taught as she practically lived on my lap until she crossed the rainbow bridge at her good old age. People often asked what breed she was and it was a mouthful: Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. It is so long that even the breed name is officially abbreviated as CKC. Each time I introduced her, it seemed rather amusing that a cute little lap dog would have such a serious brand.

And here I am once again feeling that way introducing the beloved map we've been using in our coach training in the last two years or so. It's a simple (and possibly easy) map with a serious name with somewhat good reasons (see the posts Good Reason #1, and Good Reason #2 for more).

This map is inspired by the work of the international microanalysis associates, Joel Simon, and Lance Taylor who taught me to focus on making the co-construction visible when I coach and teach by inductively examining how we respond in interaction.

We hear this not only in dialogues that happen in a coaching setting but other ordinary conversations among friends, colleagues, and families. There seems to be an inherent timeline in our narrative. Here's a little excerpt from my conversation with Andrew who was going for a major change in his career.

I have been wanting to make this move, and now I feel that it's the right time. I used to be very anxious about confronting people but obviously, not anymore. I used to worry about how people might think or feel about me, and that took some time to get over. And now this opportunity came up a bit earlier than I thought and I started to panic a bit. But, oh well, you could never be fully ready, right? (Excerpt from Surfing the Landslide, 2016 )

What might you say here? Wait, before we think about what we might say next, what did you hear? What intrigues your next response - whether a statement or a question or a smile or all of the above? If we were to look at what Andrew said in terms of timeline, what did you hear that he said about his past, and what about his future? Where would you plot them on this horizontal timeline?

In a conversation like coaching that can be a bit more polarized than other ordinary conversations, the content of people's narrative can be mapped on a spectrum between good stuff and not so good stuff. As you can imagine, the good stuff is what people want to see continue, increase, and grow in their life: interactions, moments, experiences, thoughts, decisions, attitudes, feelings, and hopes that people want more of in their life. The opposite end is the not-so-good stuff that people want less of. Borrowing from the work of Microanalysis of Face-to-Face Dialogue (MFD), these can be termed Positive Content and Negative Content. Going back to what Andrew said, how might you map what he said?

As you may have noticed, mapping the content may not be as clear as the timeline. Partially because we are only looking at the written text here void of other audible and visible acts of his meaning, and perhaps we have more room for making inferences when we are trying to map, or judge, if the content indicates good things or not-so-good things in someone else's life. But you get the gist of it. Borrowing from Korzybski (1933), it is a map after all, not the territory.

Putting the timeline and the content together, voilà, we have the quadrant. For now, let's call them: Positive Future (Q1), Positive Past (Q2), Negative Past (Q3), and Negative Future (Q4). Simple enough?

In coaching, which quadrant(s) should a coach focus on? Which quadrant(s) would be most useful? Without overthinking it, most coaches answer Q1 (Positive Future). Yes, yes, Q2, Q3, and Q4, they are all useful although some may not be necessary. Whether you think Q1 or any other quadrants, the question isn't about which quadrant, but more so about are we doing what we say we are doing?

One of the most profound lessons I learned from MFD is watching how questions work. As Healing & Bavelas (2011) said, "All questions are 'loaded questions'; the practitioner's choice is how to 'load' them with presuppositions that will be useful to the client." Clients often accept our presuppositions and they orient toward what we ask for.

Let's consider the following popular opening questions that you can easily find on YouTube. What are the presuppositions? Which quadrant are they orienting our clients to look? How might that function?

Tape after tape, our clients cooperated by going where the questions directed their attention to. These unchallenged presuppositions were accepted as a mutually understood common ground to stand on. That orientation happens in the beginning, it happens in the middle of it, and it happens throughout the conversation with our gestures, mhms, formulations, and questions. After all, all we can do is orienting, not moving, the client toward what they want more of. That's the hard part of the easy work of coaching.

As mentioned earlier, the DOQ is developed as a tool with a specific intention. We have found this to be a useful learning tool when used for observation and reflection. Observation needs an object to watch - a conversation in this case - and reflection requires making sense of what we notice.

Inspired by many practitioners we've met on the way, the quadrants are named this way:

When taught as a concept without practice, this model carries a significant risk of reducing the sophisticated dialogic process to a clunky two-by-two. Pull out your old tape if you have one, record a new one with your phone, and sit and observe:

How are your questions orienting your clients?

Map your client's responses on the map as much as you can preserving their language.

Out of all the building blocks on the map (or not), which ones did you respond to? How come? How did you respond?

After your response (however micro or macro), what happened to the client's narratives and utterances? Does it shift from one quadrant to another? Does it stay?

What are some other ways of responding in each of the quadrants? (See Opportunities paper by Joel Simon and Lancy Taylor for this idea)

I hope this is useful and usable in your coaching conversations for many of you.

Now, listen around, you'll hear it.

Reference: Healing, S., & Bavelas, J. (2011) Can Questions Lead to Change? An Analogue Experiment. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 30 (4), p.46).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Model #1: Dialogic Orientation Quadrant (DOQ) - CCBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I had a beautiful (and quirky) dog, Cookie, who joined many of the online classes I taught as she practically lived on my lap until she crossed the rainbow bridge at her good old age. People often asked what breed she was and it was a mouthful: Cavalier King Charles Spaniel.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bereits die Aufnahme-Fragen zeigen feststellbare Wirkung

# data[].attributes.subject
Bereits die Aufnahme-Fragen zeigen feststellbare Wirkung

# data[].attributes.body
Effects of Solution-Focused Versus Problem-Focused Intake Questions on Pre-treatment Change

Christopher J. Richmond, Sara Smock Jordan, Gary H. Bischof and Eric M. Sauer

Published Online:March 2014 https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2014.33.1.33

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This research tested the hypothesis that changing the language of intake procedures could be beneficial. Two randomized studies compared solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) intake procedures with traditional intake procedures. In Study 1, clients completed either a standard written intake form with problem-focused questions or an SFBT Short Intake Form. Clients answering the solution-focused questions described significantly more solutions and significantly fewer problems than the comparison group. Study 2 compared an SFBT intake interview with a DSM-based diagnostic intake interview. Clients in the SFBT intake interview improved significantly on the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) before their first therapy session, whereas those in the diagnostic intake did not. Both studies demonstrated that intake procedures are not neutral information gathering and that strength-based questions have advantages. Using solution-focused language in intake procedures can change the information that clients provide and even lead to pre-treatment change. Both intake procedures are ready for adoption by practitioners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of Solution-Focused Versus Problem-Focused Intake Questions on Pre-treatment Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This research tested the hypothesis that changing the language of intake procedures could be beneficial. Two randomized studies compared solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) intake procedures with traditional intake procedures. In Study 1, clients completed either a standard written intake form with problem-focused questions or an SFBT Short Intake Form.

# data[].attributes.body
im Gespräch mit Elfie&Dominik

# data[].attributes.body
SF Coaching!! Untersucht wird 'co-construction'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring Relational Dialogue in Solution-Focused Coaching Sessions: An Analysis of Co-Construction and Reflection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ABSTRACT Purpose: To examine solution-focused coaching (SFC) as a means to enhance clinicians' professional development. Methods: Six pediatric rehabilitation clinicians (three physical, two occupational, and one behavior therapist) each received two SFC sessions targeting clinical listening goals. Conversational intervals were noted in session transcriptions. Frequencies of relational strategies and conversational intervals were calculated.

# data[].attributes.headline
Darüber, wie bevorzugte Zukunft detailliert wird

# data[].attributes.subject
Darüber, wie bevorzugte Zukunft detailliert wird

# data[].attributes.body
Building Miracles in Dialogue: Observing Co-construction Through a Microanalysis of Calibrating Sequences

Peter De Jong, Sara Smock Jordan, Sara Healing and Jennifer Gerwing

Published Online:October 2020https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2020.39.2.84

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building Miracles in Dialogue: Observing Co-construction Through a Microanalysis of Calibrating Sequences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This research continues in the line of several previous studies in the micro-analysis of therapy dialogues that are making the abstract tenets of social constructionism directly observable. Here, w...

# data[].attributes.headline
Das Thema taucht auch in anderen Podcastepisoden auf

# data[].attributes.subject
Das Thema taucht auch in anderen Podcastepisoden auf

# data[].attributes.body
wähle Menüpunkt 'Microanalysis'

# data[].attributes.body
(Vielleicht einer der ersten, wenn nicht der erste) wissenschaftliche Artikel, in dem -an der Stelle, an welchem Gegenstand der Untersuchung beschrieben wird- Egebnisse der Mikroanalyse herangezogen werden.

Solution-Focused Brief Coaching: An Exploratory Study in Nurses With Burnout

Hong Luo, Linying Cao, Lei Yue,

Zhikang Peng, Xuezhen Lei, Zhaoyi Li, Hongyan Liu and Zhiguo Hu

Published Online:  19 Mar 2020 https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2019.38.4.80

# data[].attributes.headline
Wie Zuhörreaktionen die erzählte Geschichte beeinflussen

# data[].attributes.subject
Wie Zuhörreaktionen die erzählte Geschichte beeinflussen

# data[].attributes.body
Die sg. T-study, eine experimentelle Forschung

# data[].attributes.body
welche sich auf Ergebnisse von Microanalyse beruft bei der Definintion von SF

# data[].attributes.headline
Aktuell läuft  eine Studie über Telefongespräche!!

# data[].attributes.subject
Aktuell läuft  eine Studie über Telefongespräche!!

# data[].attributes.headline
Dokumentation des Research.meeting am 6.9.2021

# data[].attributes.subject
Dokumentation des Research.meeting am 6.9.2021

# data[].attributes.body
organisiert von nla-Schweiz und ASC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research.Meeting "Wunder im Dialog aufbauen"

# data[].attributes.body
Mit einem RIESEN Dankeschön an Elfie Czerny und Dominik Godat für ihre Arbeit, für uns diesen Artikel aufzubereiten

# data[].attributes.body
Am zweiten gemeinsamen Austrian SolutionCircle und nla-Schweiz Research.meeting zeigen uns Elfie J. Czerny und Dominik Godat, wie wir in lösungsfokussierten Gesprächen mit zukunftsorientierten Fragen (wie z.B. der Wunderfrage) gemeinsam mit unseren Gegenübern Moment für Moment Bedeutung schaffen.

Im Fokus steht diesmal der Artikel «BUILDING MIRACLES IN DIALOGUE: OBSERVING CO-CONSTRUCTION THROUGH A MICROANALYSIS OF CALIBRATING SEQUENCES» von Peter de Jong, Sara Jordan, Sara Healing und Jennifer Gerwing. Anhand dieses Artikels sowie konkreten Gesprächssequenzen auf Video zeigen Elfie & Dominik auf, wie die Autor*innen vorgegangen sind. Entdecke, wie wir als Praktiker*innen mit Mikroanalyse Moment für Moment sehen können, was wir und unsere Gesprächspartner*innen tun und wie aus dem gemeinsamen Tun nützliche Bedeutungen entstehen.

Für alle, die

• wissen wollen, wie lösungsfokussierte Praktiker*innen mit zukunftsorientierten Fragen Bedeutung co-konstruieren.

• entdecken wollen, wie Bedeutung Moment für Moment im Tun entsteht.

• sich für Mikroanalyse und den aktuellen Stand der Mikroanalyse-Forschung interessieren,

• wissen wollen, wie Mikroanalyse angewendet werden kann.

• sich für Calibration und dessen interaktive Funktionen interessieren.

• sich dafür interessieren, wie Kommunikation funktioniert.

Unsere Gastgeber*innen Elfie J. Czerny und Dominik Godat arbeiten im Rahmen ihrer Forschung und der Verbreitung von Mikroanalyse aktiv mit den Autor*innen des Artikels zusammen. Sie tragen mit ihren Beiträgen zu Mikroanalyse und ihrem Mikroanalyse-Kurs wesentlich dazu bei, dass die Ergebnisse dieser Forschung für die Praxis zugänglich und nutzbar werden.

Den Angemeldeten stellen wir auf Wunsch den Artikel vorab zu. Auf Anfrage bleibt der Artikel für Interessierte kostenlos zugänglich.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anhang_Wunder im Dialog aufbauen_Transkript KALIBRIERSEQUENZEN IM DIALOG

# data[].attributes.body
https://austriansolutioncircle.at

# data[].attributes.body
nla-Schweiz.ch

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Artikel zur interaktionellen Sichtweise

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Artikel zur interaktionellen Sichtweise

# data[].attributes.body
Eine Sammlung von 5 praxisnahen, alltagstauglichen Artikeln, die auf den Erkenntnissen von Mikroanalyse von Face-to-Face Dialog aufbauen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About this course

Herzlich Willkommen zu "5 Artikel zur interaktionellen Sichtweise in 5 Tagen" mit Elfie Czerny & Dominik Godat
Wir freuen uns über dein Interesse und hoffen, dass diese 5 Artikel für dich nützlich sind und deine Arbeit effektiver und effizienter machen.

Entdecke, welche Unterschiede 1) dein Gesprächsfokus 2) deine Deine Fragen 3) dein Dein Zuhören 4) deine gesprächsbegleitenden Gesten machen und wie du im Gespräch 5) co-konstruierst.

5 Tage, 5 Artikel, 5 x praktisch. 5 x wirksam. 5 x einfach umsetzbar. 5 x alltagstauglich. 5 x kostenlos.

Wir wünschen dir viel Spass beim Lesen!

Herzlich,

Elfie Czerny & Dominik Godat
*Beim Registrieren werden deine Daten an Ruzuku übermittelt. Bevor du dich registrierst, lies unsere Datenschutzerklärung und jene von Ruzuku.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sign Up for 5 Artikel zur interaktionellen Sichtweise in 5 Tagen mit Elfie Czerny & Dominik Godat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Herzlich Willkommen zu "5 Artikel zur interaktionellen Sichtweise in 5 Tagen" mit Elfie Czerny & Dominik Godat Wir freuen uns über dein Interesse und hoffen, dass diese 5 Artikel für dich nützlich sind und deine Arbeit effektiver und effizienter machen.