1. How are the theories similar and different?
2. What are some strengths and limitations of each theory?
3. What are some ways that each theory is compatible and incompatible with
Biblical concepts?
4. Based on each theory’s concept of psychopathology, discuss any limitations
as far as creating measurable outcomes for clients.
Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) and Narrative Therapy (NT) are both rooted in
postmodernism and social constructionism, which means they assume human
understanding is constructed through observation and experience 1
2
. Both approaches
focus on exceptions to the problem and the individual’s strengths, and concentrate on
the positive 1
2
. They require the therapist to collaborate with the clients to co-create
treatment while the therapist tries to keep their biases out of the treatment 1
2
.
However, there are some differences between these two approaches. NT defines
problems as external to individuals and families, which makes people less defensive
when addressing issues 1
. It deconstructs the dominant narrative and empowers the
individual to take ownership of their story 1
. On the other hand, SFBT focuses on breaking
dysfunctional patterns without focusing on cause or history 1
. The focus is on solutions,
finding exceptions to the problem, and asking probing questions to find alternatives 1
.
In terms of techniques, NT is not technique driven, rather, the focus is to externalize the
problem, examine the influence the individual has on the problem, write letters,
encourage celebrations and certificates, ask questions about the significance to reveal
the meaning and individual gives an event 1
. SFBT uses the miracle question (One night,
your problem was solved. How would you know it was solved? What would be
different?), compliments for family members to focus on strengths, scaling progress,
and looking for exceptions to problematic patterns 1
.
Please note that while I strive to provide accurate information, it’s always best to refer to
the original sources for complete and comprehensive understanding (Corey, 2017; Hays
& Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022).
According to Corey (2017), Hays & Erford (2018), Schwizer & Rubin (2015), and Tan
(2022), solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) and narrative therapy are similar and
different in the following ways:
Similarities:
●Both SFBT and narrative therapy encourage clients by focusing on positive
behavioral changes and building on previous solutions, versus than dwelling on
past problems or pathology such as previous theories we have studied (Corey,
2017;).
●Both solution-focused brief therapy and narrative therapy are rooted in
postmodernism and social constructionism, which means they assume that
human understanding is constructed through observation and experience, and
that reality is not mirrored in the human mind but interpreted (Corey, 2017; Hays
& Erford, 2018).
●Both SFBT and narrative therapy assume that language influences the way
people view the world, and that changing the language can change the
perception of the problem and the solution (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018).
●Both SFBT and narrative therapy require the therapist to collaborate with the
clients to co-create treatment, while the therapist tries to keep their biases out of
the treatment (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018).
Differences:
●SFBT defines problems as dysfunctional patterns that can be broken without
focusing on the cause or history, while narrative therapy defines problems as
external to individuals and families, and deconstructs the dominant narrative that
oppresses them (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018).
●SFBT is highly pragmatic and goal-oriented, and focuses on finding solutions,
exceptions, and alternatives to the problem, while narrative therapy is more
meaning-oriented and focuses on creating preferred narratives that are not only
detailed and action-oriented, but also rich and meaningful (Corey, 2017; Hays &
Erford, 2018; Schwizer & Rubin, 2015).
●SFBT uses techniques such as the miracle question, scaling, compliments, and
looking for exceptions, while narrative therapy uses techniques such as
externalizing the problem, examining the influence, writing letters, celebrating,
and asking questions about the significance (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018;
Schwizer & Rubin, 2015).
●SFBT is an evidence-based practice that has been supported by controlled
outcome studies and systematic qualitative reviews, while narrative therapy is
more of a philosophical approach that has been criticized for its lack of empirical
evidence and scientific rigor (Tan, 2022).
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Some of the strengths and weaknesses of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT)
according to Corey (2017), Hays & Erford (2018), Schwizer & Rubin (2015), and Tan
(2022) are:
Strengths:
●SFBT is short-term, pragmatic, and goal-oriented, which can save time and
money for clients and therapists, and increase client satisfaction and motivation
(Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022).
●SFBT empowers clients by focusing on their strengths, resources, and solutions,
rather than their problems, weaknesses, or pathology (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford,
2018; Tan, 2022).
●SFBT is flexible and adaptable to various settings, populations, and issues, and
can be integrated with other therapeutic approaches (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford,
2018; Tan, 2022).
●SFBT is an evidence-based practice that has been supported by controlled
outcome studies and systematic qualitative reviews, especially for issues such
as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and family conflict (Tan, 2022).
Weaknesses:
●SFBT may not work for everyone, especially for clients who are introverted,
resistant, or need more time to explore their feelings and emotions (Corey, 2017;
Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022).
●SFBT may not address the root causes or underlying issues of the problem,
which may lead to superficial or temporary solutions, or recurrence of the
problem (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022).
●SFBT may not give enough attention to the past, the context, or the meaning of
the problem, which may limit the client’s understanding of themselves and their
situation (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022).
●SFBT may be misused or misunderstood by some therapists, who may impose
their own goals or solutions on the client, or neglect the ethical and cultural
aspects of the therapy (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022; Thomas,
20071).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Some of the strengths and weaknesses of narrative therapy according to Corey (2017),
Hays & Erford (2018), Schwizer & Rubin (2015), and Tan (2022) are:
Strengths:
●Narrative therapy emphasizes personal agency, collaboration, externalization, and
exploration of multiple perspectives, which can help clients to take control of
their own lives, challenge their problems, and create preferred narratives that
align with their values and goals (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Schwizer &
Rubin, 2015; Tan, 2022).
●Narrative therapy values the client’s expertise and perspective, and respects their
cultural and social context, which can foster a non-judgmental and egalitarian
therapeutic relationship (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Schwizer & Rubin,
2015; Tan, 2022).
●Narrative therapy can be helpful for people who suffer from various conditions
such as anxiety, depression, trauma, addictions, eating problems, anger, and
general difficulties with emotion regulation (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018;
Schwizer & Rubin, 2015; Tan, 2022). Narrative therapy can be used with
individuals, couples, and families ( ; 1 2).
Weaknesses:
●Narrative therapy may not work for everyone, especially for clients who are
introverted, resistant, or need more time to explore their feelings and emotions
(Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022).
●Narrative therapy may not address the root causes or underlying issues of the
problem, which may lead to superficial or temporary solutions, or recurrence of
the problem (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022).
●Narrative therapy may not give enough attention to the past, the context, or the
meaning of the problem, which may limit the client’s understanding of
themselves and their situation (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022).
●Narrative therapy may be misused or misunderstood by some therapists, who
may impose their own goals or solutions on the client, or neglect the ethical and
cultural aspects of the therapy (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018; Tan, 2022;
Thomas, 2007).
●Narrative therapy may lack empirical evidence and scientific rigor, as it is more of
a philosophical approach than a testable intervention ( ; 3 4).
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzz
According to Corey (2017), Hays & Erford (2018), Schwizer & Rubin (2015), and Tan (2022),
solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) and narrative therapy are compatible or incompatible with
biblical concepts in the following ways:
Compatibility:
● Both SFBT and narrative therapy are compatible with the biblical concept of hope, which
is the confident expectation of God’s promises and purposes (Romans 5:5; Hebrews
11:1). Both approaches help clients to envision a future that is aligned with their values
and goals, and to take steps to achieve them (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018).
● Both SFBT and narrative therapy are compatible with the biblical concept of grace,
which is the unmerited favor and love of God for humanity (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:4-7).
Both approaches respect the dignity and worth of clients, and do not judge them based
on their problems or past (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018).
● Both SFBT and narrative therapy are compatible with the biblical concept of
stewardship, which is the responsible use of the gifts and resources that God has
entrusted to humanity (Genesis 1:28; 1 Peter 4:10). Both approaches emphasize the
strengths and resources of clients, and encourage them to use them for the common
good (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018).
Incompatibility:
● SFBT may be incompatible with the biblical concept of sin, which is the rebellion against
God and the violation of his law (Romans 3:23; 1 John 3:4). SFBT does not address the
root causes or underlying issues of the problem, which may include moral or spiritual
aspects (Corey, 2017; Tan, 2022).
● SFBT may be incompatible with the biblical concept of repentance, which is the change
of mind and heart that leads to the turning away from sin and the turning to God (Acts
3:19; 2 Corinthians 7:10). SFBT does not require clients to acknowledge their
wrongdoing or seek forgiveness from God or others (Corey, 2017; Tan, 2022).
● Narrative therapy may be incompatible with the biblical concept of truth, which is the
correspondence of reality with God’s revelation and character (John 14:6; 17:17).
Narrative therapy assumes that there is no objective truth, but multiple subjective truths
that are constructed by language and culture (Corey, 2017; Tan, 2022).
● Narrative therapy may be incompatible with the biblical concept of authority, which is the
right and power of God to rule over his creation and to delegate it to human agents
(Psalm 103:19; Romans 13:1-7). Narrative therapy challenges the dominant narratives
that oppress clients, which may include the authority of God, the Bible, or the church
(Corey, 2017; Tan, 2022).
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzz
One of the limitations for creating measurable outcomes for clients in solution-focused brief
therapy (SFBT) and narrative therapy is that both approaches are more qualitative than
quantitative in nature, and they rely on the client’s subjective perception of change rather than
objective indicators of progress (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018). This may pose challenges
for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of these therapies, especially in settings that
require standardized measures and evidence-based practices (Tan, 2022).
Another limitation is that both SFBT and narrative therapy may not have clear and specific
criteria for defining and measuring the goals and outcomes of therapy, as they are largely
determined by the client’s preferences and values (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018). This may
make it difficult to compare and contrast the results of these therapies with other approaches
that have more operationalized and operationalized definitions of success and failure (Tan,
2022).
A third limitation is that both SFBT and narrative therapy may not capture the complexity and
diversity of the client’s experience and context, as they tend to focus on the positive and
preferred aspects of the client’s life, and may neglect or minimize the negative and problematic
aspects (Corey, 2017; Hays & Erford, 2018). This may limit the validity and generalizability of
the outcomes of these therapies, as they may not reflect the full range of the client’s challenges
and resources (Tan, 2022).
References:
Corey, G. (2017). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (10th ed.). Cengage
Learning.
Hays, D. G., & Erford, B. T. (2018). Developing multicultural counseling competence: A systems
approach (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Schwizer, N., & Rubin, L. C. (2015). The handbook of solution-focused brief therapy: Clinical
applications. Routledge.
Tan, S. Y. (2022). Counseling and psychotherapy: A Christian perspective. Baker Academic.
References:
Corey, G. (2017). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (10th ed.).
Cengage Learning.
Hays, D. G., & Erford, B. T. (2018). Developing multicultural counseling competence: A
systems approach (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Schwizer, N., & Rubin, L. C. (2015). The handbook of solution-focused brief therapy:
Clinical applications. Routledge.
Tan, S. Y. (2022). Counseling and psychotherapy: A Christian perspective. Baker
Academic.
