The contention of this article is that systemic family therapy has much to gain from a realistic appraisal of its research base, which is as positive as possible. And that through such an appraisal we can find ways of developing the scope of family therapy to the benefit of the profession and thereby, of our clients. Family therapy will benefit if practitioners can present an informed view of research. As a preliminary approach to this objective, I review reasons why perceptions of family therapy underestimate its research base, and why therapists might resist involvement with research. The article then explores the reasons for regarding randomised controlled trials as a ‘gold standard’, and why they are not well fitted for the purpose of evaluating or developing a relational therapy. Next is a consideration of alternative approaches to research, including a consideration of what clients actually want from their therapy, then a brief review of the positive findings of outcome research. Greater emphasis on researching processes in therapy is proposed, and consideration of the ‘common factors’ debate is shown to support priorities that are specific to systemic therapies. The article concludes with suggestions for increasing the involvement of family therapists with research, both as consumers and as research practitioners.

The difficulties associated with conducting valid family therapy research within a clinical practice discourage many potential researchers. This article will describe collaboration between a group of academics, researchers and clinicians who decided to explore the process and efficacy of systemic family therapy conducted within a working private practice. The specific questions we are addressing are, whether the requests clients bring to their first session of therapy can be reliably classified by practitioners, whether these requests change over time, and whether the nature of the request is associated with therapist and client ratings of therapeutic outcome. Additional questions about the form and nature of the therapeutic alliance as experienced by both client and practitioner are also being explored. This paper will map the passage of the work from inception to its current state where over 140 clients are active participants. In doing so attention will be paid to the obstacles encountered: practical, financial and ethical, and the solutions devised to address these.

In this article we explore and discuss the relevance of the concept of powerlessness in systemic practice. The views and concerns of systemic trainees' groups are compared with those of experienced therapists'. We interviewed 12 experienced systemic therapists and investigated what made them feel powerless and how they dealt with it. Extracts from interviews are quoted and summarised in the text. We argue that therapists' powerlessness is a marginalised subject in the systemic approach and that open discussion about the topic would enhance therapists' self-reflexivity and contribute to a fuller understanding of the part that power and powerlessness play in the therapeutic relationship. We consider the place of gender, culture and wider sociopolitical contexts in the experience of therapists' powerlessness. Finally we discuss the implications of our findings for systemic therapy, training and supervision.

This study investigates ways in which systemic psychotherapists address sexual issues. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured group and individual interviews and analysed using discourse analysis. Particular attention was paid to participants' accounts of the ‘resources’ they draw on and of perceived ‘constraints’ when approaching the subject of sex. Main findings indicate that systemic training and practice would benefit from greater inclusion of sexual issues to overcome current deficiencies in the field.

Following the ‘discursive’ turn in family therapy, the attention of practitioners shifted towards understanding how culture and language shape meaning-making in therapy. In this article, we demonstrate how conversation analysis (CA) can be used to examine the processes and outcomes of systemic/constructionist practice. We used CA to study collaborative interactions of a renowned constructionist therapist Karl Tomm and one client–family. Viewing collaboration as a pivotal aspect of the therapeutic alliance, we demonstrate how the ‘split’ within-system alliances were developed and sustained in the course of therapy and how they were discursively transformed into ‘intact’ alliances. The therapist's efforts to align with perspectives of family members (and subsystems) seemed pivotal in this process.

Catherine Sanders is a clinically trained psychologist and Director of Bower Place Psychology, Family Therapy, Psychotherapy & Management in Adelaide, South Australia. She has 28 years of clinical and teaching psychology and psychotherapy practice as an individual, couple, and marital and family therapist. Catherine is a Senior Clinical Associate at the School of Psychology, Flinders University, Clinical Supervisor, School of Psychology, University of Adelaide and Visiting Lecturer, University of South Australia. She was the president of the board of the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy (2004–2005), board member and associate editor from 1984 to 1998, and member of the Australian Association of Family Therapy Working Group from 2004 to 2007. Catherine has published 13 papers and presented in excess of 300 presentations and conference papers.