An exploration of systemic practice students’ experiences of reflecting team participation

Background: Andersen’s (1987) reflecting team is a method in systemic family therapy wherein a team of clinicians have a reflective conversation in the presence of the family, aiming to introduce tentative ideas and multiple perspectives to the therapeutic process. While systemic practice students participate in the method throughout their training, prior literature has focused on therapist and family experiences of the method, the content of reflections, and students’ experiences of their training more generally.

Method: A constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) methodology was adopted to qualitatively explore systemic practice students’ experiences of reflecting team practices and how these experiences contribute to their learning. Students were recruited from a range of UK systemic training courses and 16 participated in semi-structured interviews, analysed using theoretical sampling, coding, memo-writing, and constant comparison techniques.

Results: Findings demonstrated six theoretical concepts which included four key processes students navigate in reflecting team conversations: aiming for a “good reflection”: individual meaning evolves; learning from others, risk taking and feedback; bridging teaching and practice; and developing self and voice. Additionally, two theoretical concepts were identified as conditional contexts which influence students’ experiences of the former four processes: the need for a “safe enough” foundation and working within the context of power relations.

Discussion: Findings are discussed alongside prior research and theory to consider implications for future students. Recommendations are made for training courses to place greater emphasis on the reflecting team method, and greater clarity on competency assessment are needed, indicating that revisions to the Blue Book (AFT, 2015) would be beneficial. The importance of training courses and supervisors emphasising social identity and difference is also noted, as well as identifying a need for group relational reflexivity, and for white students to avoid positioning their black and brown peers to be the ones to speak about race.