Section 12: Change and the Therapist 1 Section overview This section offers the student the opportunity to reflect upon the often taken for granted notion that the therapeutic intervention is a one-way process where if the therapy is successful, the client alone will undergo some transformational process (White, 1997, p. 127). The flip side of the coin is the more systemic and postmodernist view that therapy is a two-way process where the lives and relationships of all parties to the interaction, including the therapist, will be affected (White, 1997, p. 131). Generally, in training students are taught that they ought to remain detached and objective; that the consequences of letting one’s guard down can be disastrous both for the client and the therapist as well (Kottler & Carlson, 2005). According to White (1997, p. 128), any exception to a “one-way view” presentation of therapy is problematised and described with a negative view. For example, “counter-transference”, “co-dependency” and “blurred boundaries” are examples of what most therapeutic models deem to be undesirable, glitches that need to be scrutinised and resolved in training and supervision as they are thought to interfere with, if not contaminate, the therapeutic process (White, 1997, p. 128). But White (1997, p. 130) notes that In that the one-way account of therapy structures a relationship to therapeutic practice that disengages us from acts of meaning in relation to those experiences of our work that are potentially shaping of this work, and of our lives, it contributes to thin descriptions of our therapeutic identities, and to thin conclusions about the nature of practice. In stepping into this account of therapy we deny ourselves the opportunity to plot the significant events of our work into the story-lines of our lives. And we deny ourselves that which would otherwise be sustaining of us in the therapeutic endeavour. We become prone to frustration, to fatigue, and to a sense of being burdened by the work. And this ultimately contributes to our vulnerability to experiences of ‘burn-out’. White (1997, p. 131) argues for a two-way account of therapy which he believes is one that is life shaping, not only for the client but for the therapist as well. He said that “what is shaping of the lives of persons who seek our help is also shaping of what we commonly refer to as our work, and that what is shaping of our work is also shaping of our lives in general”. A two-way account of the change process is one that does not marginalise persons who consult therapists, promotes a rich description of those who do and “engages therapists in the re-authoring of their own lives and work” (White, 1997, p. 143). The goal in bringing this to the student’s attention is not to reiterate the need for self-care or to urge vigilance around burn-out and therapist overload, though the aim is certainly not to minimise these practices either. As Beres (2014, p. 145) states, despite picking up on the two-way account of therapy, “we may all still find ourselves at times working in stressful relationships”. As discussion on self-care for therapists is a subject that is visited many times in counselling training, the intention here is somewhat different. Kottler and Carlson (2005) speak about the prohibitions and reluctance to speak in public about the phenomenon of reciprocal changes in therapy and so this section offers the student the opportunity to reflect upon the “unspoken” i.e. the recursive and systemic nature of change, the fact that “rather than constructing persons as recipients of whatever it is that therapists have to give, reciprocity is invoked”. As Beres (2014, p. 142) states, “we cannot meet and talk with people and hear details of their lives, bear witness to their efforts to make changes in their lives, and not be touched emotionally and intellectually by this engagement”. But therapists do not only have to be affected negatively (White, as cited in Beres, 2014, p. 130). Therefore, the aim here is for students to consider the positive aspects of change as a result of a two-way account of therapy; how it can be used for their own benefit and that of the people they work with; and how the student’s position on this, their philosophical stance so to speak, will determine their “way of being in relation with others” (Gehart, 2014, p. 384). It is this stance that will inform how they “speak, think about, act with, and respond in session” (Gehart, 2014, p. 384). To encourage this reflection, the ideas and writings of Jeffery Kottler (2010), Jon Carlson (2005), Michael White (1997), Hernàndez, Gangsei and Engstrom (2007), Hurley, Martin and Hallberg (2013), as well as Harlene Anderson (1997, 2012) will be used. Learning outcomes On completion of this section, students will be able to: • discuss the reciprocal nature of therapy in regard to change and the benefits of doing so • reflect upon vicarious resilience • elaborate upon and evaluate their philosophical stance towards counselling and the facilitation of change and what impact this position has on therapy sessions • identify how they have changed or transformed over the course of studying and practising counselling and what was influential in this occurring ________________________________________ 2 Section requirements Activities There are five self-directed activities in this section. Textbook The textbook for this unit is: Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., Wampold, B. E. & Hubble, M. A. (2010). The heart and soul of change: Delivering what works in therapy (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. There is no textbook reading for this section. Readings There are five readings for this section. 1. Carlson, J. (2005). Self – surgery to remove the transponder. In J. A. Kottler and J. Carlson (Eds.), The client who changed me: Stories of therapist personal transformation (pp. 16-26) [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com. 2. Hernandez, P., Gangsei, D., & Engstrom, D. (2007). Vicarious resilience: A new concept in work with those who survive trauma. Family Process, 46(2), 229-241. 3. Hurley, D. J., Martin, L., & Hallberg, R. (2013). Resilience in child welfare: A social work perspective. International Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies, 4(2), 259-273. 4. Kottler, J. A. (2010). How clients change their therapists. In On being a therapist (4th ed., pp. 69-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 5. White, M. (1997). The therapeutic relationship. In Narratives of therapists’ lives (pp. 127-147). Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications. Optional Anderson, H. (1997). A philosophical stance: Therapists’ position, expertise, and responsibility. In Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy (pp. 93-107). New York, NY: BasicBooks. Self-assessment Please complete the self-assessment questions at the end of this section to test your understanding and knowledge against the objectives stated in this section. 3 Introduction Kottler and Carlson (2005, p. 1) write that in human history there have always been myths and stories of godlike figures who have provided guidance for weak and defenceless mortals. Zeus, Neptune, Thor, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and Moses are examples they give of these super ordinary beings who all have assisted humans needing divine intervention. In all these interactions, Kottler and Carlson (2005, p. 2) point out the gods remained unchanged; that by definition they are “immutable” and as “constant as the stars”. They are to change human beings but to remain “impervious” themselves. In a similar fashion, they argue that counsellors are taught very early in their training that they are to remain detached, objective and of service to the needs of their clients. Their issues are to be shelved at all costs and just like the aforementioned mythical figures, they are to remain “above the fray that affects mortal beings”. Issues such as counter-transference are to be cleansed through training and supervision; self-restraint is to be exercised constantly because letting down one’s guard is considered disastrous for both clients and therapists (Kottler & Karlson, 2005, p. 1). Kottler and Carlson (2005, pp.2-3) use as a metaphor the story of Prometheus, who was one of the gods of ancient Greece credited for the birth of humankind. Prometheus created mortals out of clay and they led their lives without even the most basic facilities. They were cold and hungry and unable to take care of themselves. Prometheus saw himself as their advocate and champion and so lobbied on their behalf. Zeus refused to help and in fact, ordered Prometheus to put aside these humans. Zeus preferred that Prometheus attend to more important heavenly business instead. But Prometheus had become more than a little involved with these mortals and decided to take matters into his own hands. He snuck into an unguarded gate on Mount Olympus and stole some burning embers which he gave to the humans so that they could have light and warmth. Zeus was enraged and Prometheus was taken in chains to the Caucasian Mountains to be disciplined in such a way as to also provide a lesson to others who might consider disobeying orders. Every day he was tortured in the same fashion. An eagle would attack Prometheus and eat his liver only for it to recover overnight so that the process could be repeated once again. The point of the story is that therapists are not “gods or supreme beings” whose purpose it is to deliver fire to human beings. Rather they are “partners in a journey or perhaps guides who have familiarity with the territory, contour maps of the terrain, and some experience exploring the trails in the vicinity”. The aim of therapists rather than delivering fire is to facilitate the process of clients building their own (Kottler & Karson, 2005, p. 3). However, because of the nature of the work that therapists do, and by virtue of the fact that they are human themselves, therapists who truly care for their clients and act courageously for their client’s rights, might “suffer pain and loss of sleep” (p.2). As Kottler and Carlson (2005, p. 4) comment, when therapists lose their detachment, they are punished as Prometheus was for stealing the fire. “If certain boundaries are collapsed”, therapists may experience burnout and therapist fatigue (p.4). Even Carl Rogers described how “he lost his sense of self in a relationship with a particular client to the point that he teetered on the brink of a nervous breakdown” (p.4). But all too often, the literature frames changes associated with doing therapy in a negative way (p.3) without acknowledging that there are times when therapists are changed for the better. In fact, Karl Whittaker claimed that all the therapy that he did was really for himself and that unless there was the potential for him to grow as a result of his interactions with a family, he wasn’t interested in working with them. He felt that therapy was always reciprocal. Kottler and Carlson (2005, pp. 4-6) offer the following examples of beneficial change experienced by therapists: 1. In helping clients deal with their personal struggles, the therapist often recognizes their own issues and ends up taking their own advice. Clients may be seen as change agents in the lives of therapists and a parallel process occurs. 2. Each conversation that clients bring to therapy, offers opportunities for the therapist to learn, to find new meaning, to examine subjects they had ignored and to explore their own vulnerabilities. There is no place to hide. 3. Each session increases a therapist’s knowledge about people and the world. 4. There are chances to increase knowledge about cultural groups, individual differences and the way in which people cope creatively with adversity. 5. Different situations offer the therapist the opportunity to refine techniques and to better their understanding of why and how they are doing what they do. 6. Unconscious changes also occur so that over time the way that a therapist looks at the world, interacts with people and see themselves, shifts as a result of their encounters with clients. Kottler and Carlson (2005, p. 6) believe that “it is one of our most closely guarded secrets how much we gain from such helping encounters”. 4 Reflecting upon the unspoken: The reciprocal nature of therapy Beneficial changes for the therapist Reading Please read Kottler, J. A. (2010). How clients change their therapists. In On being a therapist (4th ed., pp. 69-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. In this chapter, Kottler (2010, p. 74) suggests that the amount of improvement therapists obtain from reading books or attending mandatory professional development workshops is less than that obtained from working with clients. He states that clients can be our best teachers teaching us to become better at what we do. Using some rather interesting case studies such as the woman whose mummified husband sat in her lounge room for 10 years after his death, Kottler talks about the things that therapists learn when working with their clients. Activity 12.1: Self-directed On page 78 of the Kottler (2010) article, reference is made to a therapist who without apology or shame speaks of his fascination with other people’s secrets and perversions. He shared that he loves people’s ‘dirty laundry’ and is interested in the taboo subjects, the things that people don’t talk about and do when they are by themselves. Kottler (2010, p. 79) also admits then that he “has always been prone to some rather uninhibited behaviour when nobody is watching” like talking to himself in strange voices and pretending his house is under attack by aliens needing him to defend it with a squirt gun. Jot down your reaction to these disclosures in your learning journal. What do you believe was Kottler’s motive for revealing what he has done when no-one was watching? Are you riveted by people’s most private moments and secret selves and what is done behind closed doors when nobody is watching? How would you respond to these secret stories being revealed to you in a session? Would stories like these and those provided by Kottler (2010), haunt you? Would they transform or change you in any way? Are there lessons to be learnt from them? Kottler and Carlson (2005, pp. 6-7) interviewed a number of “the most prominent therapists in the world”. These were people who have “written the classical texts and conducted the most significant research in the field” as well as having “logged tens of thousands of hours seeing people for a variety of reasons and presenting complaints”. They were asked to tell their story of working with a particular client that had changed them the most; who or what had stood out to them as “their most significant transformative experience”. They explain: It is our belief that contained within these narratives are the keys to transformative and lasting changes, the kind that endure through a lifetime. If we can understand better how this phenomenon occurs in the lives of those who help others for a living, we may very well develop a clearer framework for how to initiate such changes more effectively in the future (p. 7). Reading Please read Carlson, J. (2005). Self – surgery to remove the transponder. In J. A. Kottler, & J. Carlson (Eds.), The client who changed me: Stories of therapist personal transformation (pp. 16-26) [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com. In this chapter, the story of Jon Carlson’s work with his client, Max, unfolds. Max at the outset would certainly have met the criteria in a diagnostic manual for a seriously disturbed person. He had active hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, demonstrated impulsive behaviour and made decisions erratically. He was six and a half feet tall and weighed well over 500 pounds. Max described having a device placed in his head by federal agents who had been following him. The procedure, he claimed, was conducted without anaesthesia and had resulted in him not being able to have any sexual fantasies anymore let alone any sex. Carlson initially believed that Max was destined for a lifetime of medication and a locked ward. But, at the end, Carlson had to admit, “I do know that Max isn’t crazy!” In addition, Carlson, himself, had made many noticeable changes as a result of his encounter with Max. He said: I am not only a different person since Max came into my life, but a better one. I can only hope that he can say the same about his association with me (p. 26). Activity 12.2: Self-directed What were the changes that Jon Carlson made? Jot these down in your learning journal and consider what the rationale might have been to include this story in this section? How do you feel about the changes Carlson reports? 4.1 Therapy: A two-way process Reading Please read White, M. (1997). The therapeutic relationship. In Narratives of therapists’ lives (pp. 127-147). Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications. In this chapter, Michael White (1997) describes the difference between a one-way and two-way account of therapy. David Epston (2008, p. 4, as cited in Beres, 2014, p. 143) commented upon White’s two-way approach to therapy. He said: You could almost palpably feel the relish with which Michael met the people who consulted him and how they in turn savoured those meetings. It brought it home to me how enriching this work we do is to our lives – the ‘two-way street’ that Michael unashamedly so often spoke about. Michael always assumed that we were the lucky ones and I know he certainly considered himself to have always been the lucky one in such meetings. In fact, I think Michael looked up to those he met. In the prescribed reading, Michael White also encourages “taking-it-back practices” which he describes as performances that contribute “to the rich description of the lives of all parties to the therapeutic conversation” (p. 145). Activity 12.3: Self-directed Jot down in your learning journals some examples of when you might have engaged in a “taking-it-back practice”. Beres (2014, pg. 143) provides an example. She talks about a woman called Val whom she met early in her career as a social worker. Val had asked to be seen because she had experienced physical and emotional abuse on many occasions from her husband. Val told her that she had read numerous romance novels so that she could learn how to prevent her husband from beating her. Her husband would call her his “horny little angel” so she would try and find books in which the heroines acted this way so that she could model her behaviour on theirs. As a result of this last comment, Beres undertook doctoral research looking at how people were using cultural texts as a form of curriculum and learning. At a similar time, she attended a narrative therapy conference and was moved by Michael White’s ideas about how she could work deconstructing the powerful messages within the romance discourse. She phoned Val and told her what an impact Val had had on her life and how she had inspired Beres in her further work. 4.2 Vicarious resilience Reading Please now read Hernandez, P., Gangsei, D., & Engstrom, D. (2007). Vicarious resilience: A new concept in work with those who survive trauma. Family Process, 46(2), 229-241. In this article, the researchers noted that the practitioners they interviewed not only highlighted their issues of vicarious traumatisation but emphasised how much they had learnt from the resilience of the people they had worked with (Beres, 2014, p. 140). Hernàndez et al. (2007, p. 240) conclude that “therapists may find their ability to reframe negative events and coping skills enhanced through work with trauma survivors if they are open to, and aware of the possibility and utility of vicarious resilience”. Another study by Hurley, Martin and Hallberg (2013, p. 269) looking at resilience from the perspective of front line child protection workers speaks of the “bi-directional ‘transmission of resilience’ in which both people in a relationship are affected by the resilience of the other”. One of the child protection officers actually described resilience as a “contagious process, meaning that resilience can be triggered by witnessing or participating in the performance of another person’s resilience” (p. 269). Hurley et al. (2007, p. 268) concluded that “resilience in child protection is viewed as a two-way relationship in which both participants can benefit from the strength and resourcefulness of the other … supporting resilience in clients creates the potential for shared resilience to flourish”. Reading Please read Hurley, D. J., Martin, L., & Hallberg, R. (2013). Resilience in child welfare: A social work perspective. International Journal of child Youth and Family Studies, 4(2), 259-273. Activity 12.4: Self-directed In this part, Reflecting upon the unspoken: The reciprocal nature of therapy, you have considered 1) possible beneficial changes for the therapist, 2) therapy as a two-way process and 3) vicarious resilience. Now: 1. 1. Identify one important concept or idea that you learned from the material in this part. 2. Why do you believe that this concept or idea is important? 3. How can you apply what you have learned to some aspect of your clinical practice? 4. What question(s) has this part raised for you? What are you still wondering about? 5 The philosophical stance of the therapist The manner in which a therapist views change will influence the way that they position themselves with their clients. As Anderson (1997, p. 94) states, a philosophical stance is a way of being in a relationship with not just our clients but our fellow human beings. It determines how “we think about, talk with, act with, and respond to them”. It is a “philosophy of life” in action and forms “both a professional and personal way of being in the world” (Anderson, 2007, p. 43). “Keep in mind”, Anderson (1997, p. 107) warns, “that the philosophical stance is part of an overall way of being that shows itself, and that a client experiences, from the first point of client-therapist contact”. Interestingly, Anderson (2007, p. 10) prefers the word “transformation” or “transforming” to the word change. She said that change in the psychotherapy world usually amounts to the idea of one person changing another or a person changing from one thing to another. She says: One person cannot unilaterally determine another’s response, perception, interpretation, or behaviour. Information does not objectively exist; it is an observer punctuation. Each person uniquely interprets and responds to what appears to be information … A therapist, therefore, is not a causal agent or an agent of change. Whether we think of it as changing or transforming, it is something that people do with each other – it is relational. “Transforming” for the current lack of another word, permits me to keep in mind that we are never at a standstill; our meanings, our bodies, and so on are always in motion (e.g. altering, developing, evolving) from the moment of birth to death. And there is always a sense of continuity in it; we do not change for instance from one person to another, but as new and different identities come forward, we remain who we have been and are, while at the same time we are becoming … It also permits me to be hopeful: to appreciate that human beings are resilient, that each person values, wants, and strives toward healthy successful lives and relationships (Anderson, 2007, pp. 10-11). Activity 12.5: Self-directed Please watch Anderson, H. (2012). The philosophical stance: a way of practicing. Mindspace Publishing. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/47009785 In this video, Harlene’s philosophical stance is clear. She demonstrates her postmodern approach which argues for a collaborative relationship focusing upon dialogical conversations which are generative of mutual transforming. Other therapists, as has been shown, have different philosophies. For example, Michael White, also a postmodern theorist and practitioner, holds the belief that a therapist ought to make it their business to structure the context of therapy “so that it is less likely to reproduce dominant cultural forms of organisation, including those that perpetuate hierarchies of knowledge and other oppressive practices” (White, 1995, p. 47). In your journal, jot down some of your beliefs about change and your philosophical stance. It is one thing to learn the skills of a modality. It is quite another to take up the philosophical stance (Beres, 2014, p. 8). So, what are your views now on change? What is your philosophical stance? Have your ideas ‘transformed’ since doing the unit Change, Influence and Power Dynamics? Do you believe, for example, that a therapist is an agent of change? Does it hold true as stated by Kottler and Carlson (2005, p. 5) that “clients, as distracted and disoriented as they may be, amateurish as they may be in their efforts, are still powerful change agents in our lives, for better or worse”? Or is Anderson (1997) more accurate when she says that change is something people do with each other, that changing or transforming is relational? Is this splitting hairs over language or are these considerations important in that they clarify our philosophical stance and our way of being in relation with others (Gehart, 2014, p. 384)? Optional reading You are invited to read Anderson, H. (1997). A philosophical stance: Therapists’ position, expertise, and responsibility. In Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy (pp. 93-107). New York, NY: BasicBooks. 6 Conclusion and Self-assessment Conclusion In this section, the student has been challenged to consider the phenomenon of reciprocal change, or a two-way account of therapy, and to reflect upon how this philosophical stance will impact upon clinical practice and relationships in general. Self-assessment Did you achieve the objectives for this section? To test your knowledge, write brief answers to the following questions: 1. What are the positive aspects of working with clients in regard to personal and professional change or ‘transformation’? 2. What is Michael White’s view of a two-way account of therapy? 3. What does he mean by ‘taking-it-back practice’? 4. What do you understand by vicarious resilience? 5. How do you believe a postmodern philosophical stance towards therapy differs from a modernist one? 7 Epilogue In the subject Change, Influence and Power Dynamics, the student has had the opportunity to consider differing views of diverse theoretical orientations to change and the change process. They have reflected upon whether some forms of therapy are more effective than others; whether there is a need to consider theories at all and whether the concept of the dodo bird effect is relevant. They have been given an historical overview of changing philosophies and practice. They have considered power and influence, the therapeutic relationship, resistance, working with hope, expectancy, spirituality, humour and metaphors and the creation of a safe space to facilitate the change process. They have looked at change for both the client and the therapist and the concept of a two-way, reciprocal approach to therapy. Finally, they have considered what adopting this concept signifies in terms of their philosophical stance and ways of being in both a professional and personal relationship with others. In Section 1, questions that were posed included: • What is it that we are talking about in regard to change? • Who determines what change is necessary? • How do we know that change is possible? • Who determines when change has been accomplished? Certainly, it is hoped that these questions have been addressed in subsequent sections. But rather tongue in cheek, so as to uphold some of the magic and challenge of human relations and working in the caring profession, a story that Jeffrey Kottler (2012, p. 147) tells of a visit he made to his dental hygienist is presented here. 7.1 Kottler’s visit to the dental hygienist Kottler’s visit to the dental hygienist (2012, pp. 147-148) At his semi-annual visit to have his teeth cleaned, Jeffrey Kottler met what he describes as a “fresh-faced, newly minted hygienist” who he could tell was a recent graduate because she was wearing goggles and other new devices rather than the usual rubber gloves and mask. She also appeared very excited about a new piece of equipment which had electromagnetic jet streams of pressurized water. Kottler was a little uncertain whether it was a good or a bad thing to have someone so new attending, or as he put it, “playing”, with his mouth. He wished she would stop jabbering and tried to tune her out as best as he could by taking “a little nap with his mouth open”. It didn’t help! She asked him enthusiastically how often he brushed his teeth. After considering whether it was a spiel she had been taught in dental hygiene school and feeling irritated that this was something he had to listen to every 6 months which had caused him to buy endless amounts of gum stimulants, tongue brushers and dental floss, he finally answered that he brushed his teeth twice a day. The hygienist looked worried and asked him dubiously, “Every day?” “Sure”, he answered, “why?” He glowed with pride when she replied that his oral hygiene was impeccable. However, she didn’t stop there! She went on to enquire how often he flossed his teeth. He had to lie because, truth be told, he never flossed. He preferred toothpicks. “Every day,” was his reply. She stuck her finger in his mouth and pointed to a spot explaining that there was one spot where she detected some erosion. Kottler began to panic. He didn’t want to go back under what he calls, the “gum knife”, which had been the worst experience of his life. And he knew at that moment that he would start flossing again. Something had just clicked in his head and he was positive that this wasn’t an idle promise to himself. He knew that he was forever changed. Yet, he was unwilling to give that young hygienist the satisfaction of knowing that she had had an effect on him. He felt that she was way too eager and bubbly and he didn’t want her to keep on badgering patients in that overly enthusiastic manner. So he took the goodie bag he was offered, which of course contained dental floss as well, and left scheduling an appointment for 6 months hence. Sure enough, he flossed that night and the night thereafter, and the night thereafter that. One year later and he was still flossing. What were his reasons for actually ending his book Making Change Last with this story? This is what he says: In the end, I am left in wonderment. What I love most about this work is that I will never truly understand what change is all about, much less what makes it last. I can spend a whole other lifetime in this field and still not come close to the mystery of what leads people to transform themselves for as long as they remain alive (Kottler, 2012, p. 144). As with other helping professionals, this hygienist had no idea that something she said or did impacted me in such a way that I changed my behaviour, perhaps forever. Of course, it wasn’t her efforts alone that made the difference – she merely triggered something that had been building within for some time which came together with other factors and influences at that moment … What sticks out for me in this example is that we could theorize forever about the various possibilities and still never really know (p. 148). 8 References Anderson, H. (1997). A philosophical stance: Therapists’ position, expertise, and responsibility. In Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York, NY: BasicBooks. Anderson, H. (2012). The philosophical stance: A way of practicing. Mindspace Publishing. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/47009785 Beres, L. (2014). The narrative practitioner. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Carlson, J. (2005). Self – surgery to remove the transponder. In J. A. Kottler & J. Carlson (Eds.), The client who changed me: Stories of therapist personal transformation (pp. 16-26) [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com. Gehart, D. (2014). Narrative therapy. In Mastering competencies in family therapy: A practical approach to theories and clinical documentation (pp. 403-413). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Hernandez, P., Gangsei, D., & Engstrom, D. (2007). Vicarious resilience: A new concept in work with those who survive trauma. Family Process, 46(2), 229-241. Hurley, D.J., Martin, L., & Hallberg, R. (2013). Resilience in child welfare: A social work perspective. International Journal of child Youth and Family Studies, 2, 259-273. Kottler, J. A. (2010). How clients change their therapists. In On being a therapist (pp. 69-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kottler, J. A. (2012). Making changes last. [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com. Kottler, J. A., & Carlson, J. (2005). The client who changed me: Stories of therapist personal transformation. [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com. White, M. (1995). Re-authoring lives: Interviews and essays. Adelaide, South Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications. White, M. (1997). The therapeutic relationship. In Narratives of therapists’ lives (pp. 125-147). Adelaide, South Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.