Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 42(1): 168–184

doi: 10.1111/jmft.12110
© 2015 American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

INTERNALIZED OTHER INTERVIEWING IN

RELATIONAL THERAPY: THREE DISCURSIVE
APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING ITS USE AND
OUTCOMES
Tanya E. Mudry, Tom Strong, In
es Sametband, Marnie Rogers-de Jong, Joaqu
ın Gaete,
Samantha Merritt, Emily M. Doyle, and Karen H. Ross
University of Calgary

For over 20 years, family therapist Karl Tomm has been engaging families and couples with
a therapeutic intervention he calls Internalized Other Interviewing (IOI). The IOI (cf.
Emmerson-Whyte, 2010; Hurley, 2006) entails interviewing clients, from the personal expe-
riences of partners and family members as an internalized other. The IOI is based on the idea
that through dialogues over time, one can internalize a sense of one’s conversational partner
responsiveness in reliably anticipated ways. Anyone who has thought in a conversation with a
family member or partner, “Oh there s/he goes again,” or anticipates next words before they
leave the other’s mouth, has a sense of what we are calling an internalized other. For Tomm,
the internalized anticipations partners and family members may have offers entry points into
new dialogues with therapeutic potential—particularly, when their actual dialogues get stuck
in dispreferred patterns.

Others have written descriptively about the IOI (e.g., Emmerson-Whyte, 2010; Hurley, 2006),
and to our knowledge, its effectiveness has not been evaluated. Our interest in Tomm’s IOI relates
to how he conversationally engages clients in using it, and what comes from its observable use as a
conversational practice. Conversational practices, for us, refer to therapists’ use of particular ques-
tions or ways of responding to clients to invite particular forms of discourse, such as a focus on cli-
ent resourcefulness (Strong & Turner, 2008) or on exceptions to problems (Strong & Pyle, 2012). A
focus on conversational practices has been central to narrative (White & Epston, 1990), solution-
focused (deShazer, 1994), and collaborative (Anderson, 1997) approaches to therapy. Tomm’s
contribution to the conversational practice literature is best illustrated by a series of articles enti-
tled “Interventive Interviewing,” published in the late 1980s (Tomm, 1987a, 1987b, 1988).
Internalized other interviewing is a unique conversational practice, in that therapists ask a cli-
ent to speak for another who is present and able to respond to what gets said. Particularly, interest-
ing is Tomm’s effort, in using the IOI, to invite the interviewed client to bypass already stated
personal opinions or habitual ways of relating to the conversational other (who is present). The
intent is to invite partners to speak in new and dialogue-extending ways that include the conversa-
tional other. For Tomm, relational problems are often anchored in recurring patterns of communi-
cative interaction that can stabilize understandings (Tomm, Wulff, St. George, & Strong, 2014).
From this understanding of relational problems, conversational practices are needed to help part-

Tanya E. Mudry, PhD Candidate, Counselling Psychology, Werklund School of Education, University of Cal-
gary, Tom Strong, PhD, Professor, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, In
es Sametband, PhD
Candidate, Counselling Psychology, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Registered Marriage and
Family Therapist (AAMFT), Marnie Rogers-de Jong, PhD Candidate, Counselling Psychology, Werklund School of
Education, University of Calgary, Joaqu
ın Gaete, PhD, Associate Professor, Universidad Adolfo Ib
an~ez, Chile,
Samantha Merritt, MSc, Counselling Psychology, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Emily M.
Doyle, PhD Candidate, Counselling Psychology, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, and Karen
H. Ross, MA, Counselling Psychology, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary.
Address correspondence to Tanya E. Mudry, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, 2500 Uni-
versity Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4; E-mail: mudryt@ucalgary.ca

168 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2016

ners move beyond recurring interactions and stabilized understandings, to preferred relations. The
IOI, described in detail later, is a conversational practice that invites partners or family members
to speak from hearable yet so far unsaid understandings of each other that recur in problematic
interactions.
In this article, we present three discursively oriented analyses of a passage where Karl Tomm
engages a mother and adolescent daughter in the IOI. Using three different discursive methods, we
make evident the kinds of therapy-relevant (small) outcomes that are conversationally accomplished
using the IOI as a therapeutic technique. The term discursive, for us, refers to how language (not just
words, but symbolically understood features of interaction, such as gestures and tones of voice) is
used in interactions that stabilize or change meaning for those engaged in the interactions. Our aim
is not to further theorize or describe the IOI, but rather to examine it as a discursive practice.
Following others who have used discourse analysis in therapy (e.g., Avdi, 2005; Couture &
Strong, 2004; Couture & Sutherland, 2006; Diorinou & Tseliou, 2014; Kogan, 1998; O’Reilly,
2007; Strong, Busch, & Couture, 2008; Sutherland & Couture, 2007), we used discursive methods
of analysis to examine the IOI. Specifically, we examine the IOI in process and outcome terms,
focusing on interactions within an IOI dialogue, and what gets accomplished in and as a result of
those interactions. Accomplishments, in this microdynamic sense, are observable developments in
the language used by therapists and clients in passages of dialogue (Strong, 2007). We wanted to
see how these three analytic methods highlight different features of the IOI. We present three dis-
cursive methods of analysis (see Table 1) to identify features of dialogue relevant to therapists:
Gubrium and Holstein’s (2009) narrative analysis, critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1993),
and Ethnomethodologically informed discourse analysis (Heritage, 1984).
We chose Gubrium and Holstein’s narrative approach because it attends to relevant contex-
tual features in how stories in therapy, like unvoiced stories of an internalized other, are discur-
sively invited and elaborated. Critical discourse analysis enables us to examine the cultural and
institutional discourses therapists and clients use in trying to move beyond clients’ recurring prob-
lematic interactions. Ethnomethodologically informed discursive analysis (e.g., Wooffitt, 2005)
enables close examination of conversational accomplishments (Strong et al., 2008) occurring in
how Tomm and two clients engaged in the IOI we report on here. We proceed conceptually by con-
sidering internalized others and what is unsaid, linking these notions to a view of conversational
practices as interventions (Tomm, 1988). We then examine Tomm’s use of the IOI using each dis-
cursive method of analysis indicated earlier, and end by discussing discursive methods of analysis
as a resource to enhance therapists’ conversational practices.

THE INTERNALIZED OTHER INTERVIEW

The IOI is a conversational practice used in couple and family therapy to externalize and make
discussable what has been internal and undiscussable. Internal dialogues, for us, develop from
external dialogues in ways consistent with Vygotsky’s (1978) view that the “intermental” (people
sharing cognitions in communicative interaction) precedes the “intramental” (their thinking or
inner dialogues). Similarly, thinking and reasoning can be seen as shaped by interactions with
actual as well as anticipated or imagined conversational partners (Billig, 1996). In families, mem-
bers come to know “where not to go in conversations,” or how to avoid engaging in familiar,
objectionable dialogues (Strong & Tomm, 2007). Our sense of the discussable also grows out of
what is conversationally familiar with others, with a possible cost to novel or unfamiliar conversa-
tions (Wertsch, 1998). What seems discussable can normalize into constraining patterns of interac-
tion that Shotter (1993) referred to as “conversational realities.”
Staying familiar in one’s conversations with partners is not always beneficial, particularly if
partners become predictable and develop inflexible “discourse positions” (Davies & Harr
e, 1990;
Harr
e & van Langenhove, 1999). To illustrate, adults who always position themselves as parental
figures (i.e., using a discourse of parenting) may find it difficult to speak from positions of vulnera-
bility, such as when needing their adult children’s help. From a discursive view (e.g., Lock &
Strong, 2012), positions and the discourses that inform them do not totalize what can be under-
stood or said about any phenomenon. There is always more that can be said, and other discourse

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 169

 Table 1
Comparison of Three Discursively Oriented Methods of Analysis

Ethnomethodologically
Gubrium & Holstein’s Critical discourse informed discursive
narrative approach analysis analysis

Key Gubrium and Holstein Fairclough (1993) Wooffitt (2005)

reference (2009)
Focus Contextual features and Dominant cultural and Microconversational
unvoiced stories. institutional discourses. accomplishments—
How social power participants’ (ethno)
abuse, dominance, and methods to
inequality are enacted, conversationally work
reproduced, and out preferences: how
resisted by speakers’ use clients negotiate, during
of text and talk in social the back and forth of
and political contexts the IOI talk, preferred
identities and
relationships (i.e., how
they talk-into-being
preferred ways of
understanding/relating
to one another).
Level of Stories, Context Discourses Discursive performances
analysis and accounts
Process of Read through the Read through the Read through the
analysis interview transcript, transcript and identified transcript and identified
orienting our focus to when participants when participants used
narrative environments, brought into the identity descriptions,
considering how aspects conversation dominant accounts, and
of mainstream Western cultural discourses, and performances (e.g., how
culture, family therapy, how they used these in one “does” the identity),
Tomm’s approach, and their performances and including methods by
mother–daughter accounts. Looked for which participants
relationships could places in the observably treat those
influence participants’ conversation where identities as preferred
interactions. Considered participants challenged (invitations and
unique aspects of the dominant discourses in responses).
IOI and how these their talk.
aspects may have
shaped their talk.
Key Highlighted narrative Viewed T as challenging Saw M, D, and T jointly
findings environments in which dominant discourses accomplishing identity
the IOI conversation that were brought by M preferences both by
was taking place, and and D. With his accepting explicit
how these contexts may questions and identity descriptions
have influenced interventions, T invited and by performing
participants’ M and D to commit to preferred ways of being
interactions. Focused more personal accounts understood when
on tensions between accepting the morally

170 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2016

 Table 1
Continued

Ethnomethodologically
Gubrium & Holstein’s Critical discourse informed discursive
narrative approach analysis analysis

different speaking of themselves and their loaded invitations from

positions, finding that relationship. their conversational
participants navigated partners.
familiar and unfamiliar
ways of talking.
Utility for Therapists play an CDA can be useful to EDA helps to make
therapists important role in understand how evident the kinds of
inviting and establishing therapists and clients ethnomethods that
contexts for therapy, for engage in largely escape notice.
example, through their coconstructing (i.e., Examining the often
instructions, questions, collaborating) meaning taken-for-granted
and responses to clients. with each other. It can microfeatures of
When we analyze and helpful to show how therapeutic
explore how contexts they recognize each conversations,
for talk are negotiated, other’s communications therapists can engage in
we open space for new as different ways to greater reflexivity in
patterns of interaction understand a situation, practice. There are also
within families to occur. or conversely, to show opportunities for
how they deny the therapists to invite
conversational other’s clients into and help
communications by coconstruct more
imposing their own preferred identities.
ideas and assumptions.

positions to speak from. Dialogues with therapists can invite clients to speak from previously inde-
scribable and undiscussable discourses and discourse positions (e.g., Bar-On, 1999).
The IOI can facilitate conversations between partners and family members where discourse
positions and understandings had stabilized in problematic ways—to get beyond recurring, stuck
dialogues (Couture, 2005). We examine a variety of features associated with the IOI’s use in actual
therapeutic dialogue to see how the IOI was conversationally performed, not just in Tomm’s
verbalizing of it, but in how clients responded to him and to each other in sequences of therapeutic
dialogue. For us, how the IOI dialogue occurred was shaped not only by Tomm’s and the clients’
conversational content and ways of talking, but also by other factors relevant to what was pro-
duced from their dialogic interactions. Our three forms of discursive analysis enabled a nuanced,
close understanding of therapeutic interventions as they are used in dialogues with clients. Second-
arily, we wanted to showcase the IOI because it is a unique intervention that has received scant
mention in the clinical literature.

SAMPLE AND PROCESS OF ANALYSIS

The video passage was nominated by Dr. Tomm as exemplifying his successful use of the IOI
and one he uses for teaching purposes. The family in the video informed Tomm that they appreci-
ated the IOI exercise and felt that the session was helpful. From the transcript of the video, the
research team selected a common passage to analyze, one that offered the best exemplar for our
three methods of analysis.

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 171

Ethnomethodologically informed discourse analysis—to provide an up-close examination of how
the IOI was used in a therapeutic dialogue between Tomm and a mother and daughter. Through
each discursive form of discursive analysis (see Table 1), we highlighted different elements relevant
to using the IOI in face-to-face dialogue in therapy.
As an unconventional conversational practice, our initial analyses (Gubrium and Holstein’s
Narrative approach) highlighted different contextual features relevant to initiating and using the
IOI. The questions of the IOI invite speakers to depart from conventional everyday and therapeu-
tic talk, to speak in ways that elsewhere might be considered rude (i.e., presuming we are able to
speak for another person). As seen in our study, inviting such unfamiliar and potentially unaccept-
able forms of talking involves careful conversational work, particularly when “talking for” a fam-
ily member who is present. These unfamiliar ways of talking occur against a backdrop of other
conversational expectations also shaping the conversation—for both therapist and client. There is
an element of such questions inviting somewhat improvised answers, and with such invitations
come somewhat improvised dialogues that can be adventures into the unfamiliar and possibly
unacceptable.
Family therapists introducing a new atypical intervention strategy (e.g., IOI) might “breach”
(Garfinkel, 1967) what is expected, despite being potentially therapeutic for those involved. This
fits with Tomm’s (1988) notion that therapists’ questions be seen as “interventive.” Therapists
might find it useful to invite families into unfamiliar conversational practices (e.g., speaking as
though they are the other) with their questions, to explore new and potentially preferred stories
and understandings of family practices and members’ identities.
Our use of CDA was intended to bring out discursive differences, and how these are nego-
tiated (or not) in the back and forth of dialogue between therapist and clients. In Tomm’s col-
laborative approach to practice, meanings and discourses are not imposed on clients; instead
clients are invited to conversationally make the conversational process and outcomes fit their
preferences. Our analyses show Tomm carefully negotiating with his clients, incorporating their
meaning-making influence to guide these processes and outcomes (cf. Sutherland & Strong,
2011). Discursive collaboration is evident in how therapist and client shape such ways and out-
comes of talking. Therapists can invite clients to challenge and examine dominant discourses
that are unhelpful or constraining their lives. Similarly, analytic methods such as CDA can help
therapists reflexively identify discourses they draw from and use in conversing with clients.
Our third discursive approach to analyzing the IOI examined the microlevel ethnomethods
used by therapist and clients in doing “identity work.” This part of our analysis underscored how
preferences are at stake in the identity work of therapeutic dialogues. Specifically, we showed how
identity was accomplished explicitly (such as when the client agreed to an identity description) or
performed in a more implicit yet preferred way, following rejections of the therapist’s preferred dis-
course (interpreted by the client as “bragging”).
Therapists might attend to clients’ identity performances (and their own), as these are negoti-
ated dialogically through invitations and responses, enabling opportunities for therapists to invite
clients into new, preferred identities. This form of discursive analysis makes evident the ethno-
methods, or micro-responses, people show each other yet largely escape notice. By examining the
often taken-for-granted micro features of therapeutic conversations, therapists can engage in
greater reflexivity (see also Couture & Strong, 2004) and can begin to attend to the microdynamics
(e.g., Couture & Sutherland, 2006) of their therapeutic conversations.
Together, these three discursive methods of analysis show in-micro how any conversational
intervention might be used in therapy. Knowing about how context features in the use of such
interventions, how meaning making may be dominated, and how the micro-interactions during the
intervention lead to relevant therapeutic accomplishments, are aspects of what we refer to as con-
versational work in therapy. That work, as we represent it, is dialogic, meaning that the processes
of intervening are negotiated in the face-to-face aspects of dialogue, and with regard to other
relevant features of therapy, such as institutional policies and procedures.
Regarding the IOI itself, we wanted to show its use in one passage of therapeutic dialogue, as
seen through the lenses of three different discursive methods. Typically, interventions like the IOI
are described as conversational protocols to be followed. Seen nondialogically, such protocols are
performed or administered to clients in script-like ways of communicating. However, as most prac-

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 181

 Table 2
Continued

Transcript of session segment Explanation outlining session

90 M: yeah
91 T: ok uh what else you appreciate and
respect in your mom, “D”? (plus)
her the strength (around)
92 compassion?
93 M: the strength
94 T: what what what about her strength
95 M: uhm she’s had to overcome a few
things in her life that you know some
people might not
96 have been able to handle at times? and I
think that she can she’s gonna bounds
back no matter
97 what’s given to her
98 T: ok so you see a lot of- (back bone on
the strength) there?
99 M: mhm
100 T: ok. and what else do you see as your
mom’s talents or gifts that she’s got,
“D”?
101 M: she’d play sports ((laughs, face
turning red))
102 T: (unhearable) what kinds of sports is
she good at
103 M: oh! well this is ba:?d. I don’t like
doing this. I don’t like she likes
playing baseball ((laughs))
104 T: (unhearable) plays baseball?
105 M: hockey, volleyball, badminton
106 T: I see. “D” let me ask you does your
mom have trouble appreciating
herself?
107 M: ((laughs)) yes
108 T: she does? ((smiles))
109 M: huge!
110 T: oh really!
111 M: this is not good! this is getting
erased! ((laughing))
112 T: “D”, would you, would you,
appreciate your mom if she could
step- accept some appreciation
113 from you? would you appreciate that,
“D”?
114 M: I think she does. I think she-
appreciates
115 T: she does
116 M: what she gets from
117 T: ok
118 M: you know

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 173

 Table 2
Continued

Transcript of session segment Explanation outlining session

119 T: ok but sounds like she’s get a little

embarrassed about that
[sometimes]
120 M: [totally] totally
8. T thanks “D” for her thoughts and feelings,
says “goodbye.”
9. T interviews actual M about her experience of
being interviewed as “D.”
10. T asks M to give estimate of the % of
congruence between her answers as “D” and
the answers that the actual D was giving to
herself while she was listening.
11. T interviews actual D about the % and
congruence – and if there was anything that
“fit” for her that she was actually surprised
that her M understood her so well.
12. T asks M if she is interested in hearing about
what responses didn’t fit for her. If yes, asks D
to clarify the main issues where M was “off the
mark”/what she would have answered quite
differently.

The left column contains the actual transcript analyzed in this study, situated in its place in
the theoretical outline. The right column contains the common theoretical Internalized Other
Interview (IOI) outline (Mother – M, Daughter – D, Therapist-T).

The shared transcript can be found on the left hand column of Table 2 (situated in its position
in a common IOI). On the right hand column of Table 2, we provide a brief outline of a “common”
IOI, where T invites M and D into an IOI conversation. In this example, M speaks from her inter-
nalized daughter, that is, as though she is her daughter. For example, M (as D) might say “My
mom is controlling and grounds me all of the time.” To protect the confidentiality of our partici-
pants, we use “M” to indicate when the mother is speaking, “D” to refer to the daughter, while
“T” refers to Dr. Tomm.

GUBRIUM AND HOLSTEIN’S NARRATIVE ANALYSIS

Negotiating the Context of an Internalized Other Interview

Gubrium and Holstein (2009) describe storytelling as a situated process. People discursively
interact to mutually shape storylines, attending to aspects of their context (e.g., present or per-
ceived audiences, intended functions of storytelling, and relevant conversational resources) to talk
in ways considered sensible in that environment. At the same time, stories and conversations shape
contexts, by influencing relationships between speakers, or offering new ways of relating which
people may draw upon in the future (Bamberg, 1997; Gubrium & Holstein, 2009). By analyzing
the IOI as a storytelling and conversational practice, we attend to contexts made evident, consider-
ing how the therapist and clients actively draw upon, speak to, and negotiate these contexts in their
talk. We are particularly interested in conversationally unique aspects of the IOI that may create
space for novel ways of talking.

174 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2016

Setting the Stage for Talk and Storytelling in the IOI
The usual conventions of talking and storytelling call for people to tell their “own” stories
(Gubrium & Holstein, 2009). For therapists, “speaking for others” has often been cast as problem-
atic—a symptom of “over-responsibility” (Olson, 2000; Sprenkle & Fisher, 1980) or perhaps domi-
nance. The IOI subverts this expectation: participants are invited to tell a story from their
understanding of another’s perspective. In present circumstance, T addresses M by D’s name and
asks her to respond as D. Such novel speaking roles, likely insensible in other conversations, con-
stitute an unfamiliar aspect of the IOI context. Acknowledging the unfamiliarity of the speaking
roles expected in the IOI, T invites the clients, M and D, to participate in an experiment with him
(“Uhm are you ok with me doing an experiment?,” line 6). The term “experiment” invokes shared
ideas about an activity (and a conversational context) that is unfamiliar and should be approached
with a curious and investigative stance. Thus, the clients are invited to try out the unfamiliar roles
of the IOI in conversation with T (Dr. Tomm).
While T invites M and D to take up novel positions in the IOI, they also continue to perform
the roles of therapist and clients in socially familiar ways (McNamee & Gergen, 1992). T retains
the role of question asker; he introduces the intervention and guides the conversation. M and D
continue to follow T’s lead, responding to questions and participating in the IOI as invited. Partici-
pating in the IOI invites therapists and clients to still navigate a variety of conversational norms or
conventions, some familiar and some unfamiliar, as specified by the various environments in which
they are participating.
In this case, these environments include the surrounding contexts of family therapy, mother–
daughter relationships, the IOI, and more generally, culturally familiar conventions for communi-
cating in North America. Therapists play an important role in inviting and establishing contexts for
therapy, such as through questions and responses to clients, contexts that are dialogically negoti-
ated. While therapists may propose particular ways of talking and interacting, clients may take up,
ignore, or modify those proposals while offering suggestions of their own (cf. Massfeller & Strong,
2012). We examine the possibilities of such negotiations: how therapists and clients create new and
different ways of talking as they navigate familiar and unfamiliar contexts, which may coconstruct
new (and perhaps more viable) ways of interacting with family members in and outside of therapy.

Narrative Analysis and the IOI

Gubrium and Holstein (2009) recommend that in doing narrative research, analysts consider
both narrative work and narrative environments. Narrative work refers to how people use language
(both verbal and nonverbal) when interacting. For example, analysts may investigate the particular
words people use and their vocal tones or physical gestures when speaking them. Analyzing narra-
tive environments focuses on how physical, social, and cultural surroundings influence speakers in
responding to each other.
Our analysis with reading and re-reading the interview transcripts, focusing on narrative envi-
ronments, considering how aspects of Western culture, family therapy, Tomm’s approach, and
mother–daughter relationships could influence the participants’ interactions. We also considered the
unique aspects of the IOI (i.e., being invited to speak as an internalized other) for how these aspects
may have shaped their talk. We then examined participants’ narrative work, attending to the turn-
by-turn exchanges shown in the transcripts. We considered how this narrative work and these narra-
tive environments could be interrelated (i.e., to encourage particular forms of talk). We focus on
features of the IOI context that seemed to invite both familiar and unfamiliar ways of speaking.

Navigating the Familiar and the Unfamiliar in the IOI

Although the primary goal of the IOI is for clients to speak as the “other,” the rhetorical
stakes (Edwards & Potter, 1993) involved in such speaking are very relevant. Tomm (2013)
observed that IOI participants sometimes attempt to structure the other’s experience by respond-
ing with personal preferences for how the other “should” think and feel. However, because the
other (who is present) is invited to comment on what is ostensibly said “by them,” there is also
contextual motivation to speak in ways consistent with the other’s experience. This aspect of the
IOI context can create a tension (and risk) between different speaking positions, which must be
managed during a conversation.

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 175

 Turning to the segment of therapy selected for analysis, featured in lines 78–120 in Table 2. At
this point in the session, the clients (M and D) have already been introduced to the expected roles
of the IOI and have taken turns in responding to the therapist’s (T) questions from their respective
senses of the internalized other. In line 78, T departs from previous questions focused on resolving
issues in M and D’s relationship, to ask M to speak positively about herself from the perspective of
the internalized D: “Well let me ask you, ‘D,’ what is it about your mom that you respect the
most?” (line 78).
Orienting to social conventions. When M responds, she repeatedly indicates how “difficult”
(line 79) or “tough” (line 86) she finds it to speak about her strengths. While M is expected to speak
from D’s perspective, the difficulty she describes in talking about M positively may indicate that
she is speaking from M’s position rather than D’s. M states that she does not like speaking in this
way (line 104) and minimally responds to T’s questions, using only a few words (e.g., “the compas-
sion,” line 83). Concurrently, M laughs while responding, a response hearable as indicating
discomfort or an attempt to soften her negative response to the questions.
Possibly, in describing these questions as difficult, M referred to social conventions suggesting
that people should not talk in self-promoting ways (Brandt, Vonk, & van Knippenberg, 2009). Thus,
it may be expected that M would turn down opportunities to promote herself, or to demonstrate a
willingness to do so. Conventions associated with the therapeutic context could further complicate
M’s response, as therapy talk typically focuses on relationship issues and concerns rather than on
things people already do well (White & Epston, 1990). Therefore, T’s questions posed prior to this
segment may have seemed more familiar to M, making such conversation less difficult.
Further, as D is present (and responsive to M’s answers), M’s observations about her
strengths could be vulnerable to critique. For example, if as D, M were to indicate that she demon-
strated a particular strength, D could possibly refute M’s claim, making speaking positively of
herself riskier. Finally, M’s reported difficulties were consistent with a broader context of failure
presented earlier in therapy, through such events as her past divorce and ongoing difficulties with
her daughter to develop a story about herself as unworthy or incompetent. Offering descriptions of
her strengths may seem unfamiliar to M as this kind of talk does not fit with her identity narrative
as it has been developing.
Problematizing conventions and inviting change. Importantly, T does not take up M’s pro-
tests, but persists in asking about her strengths (e.g., “What else you appreciate and respect in
your mom, ‘D’?”, lines 92–93; also lines 82, 84, and 90). By attending preferentially to talk of
M’s strengths, rather than to reports of modesty or inadequacy, T privileges an identity discourse
of M’s resourcefulness and worthiness. T later acknowledges M’s experienced challenges but in a
way that encourages her to continue speaking as her internalized D, preserving the established
context of the IOI: “‘D’ let me ask you does your mom have trouble appreciating herself?” (line
107). T’s question may be understood as problematizing the idea that it is unacceptable to talk
positively about oneself, inviting reconsideration of this idea. Accordingly, T seems to suggest
that an inability to speak positively about oneself may be something to be improved upon.
Our analyses demonstrate how conversational interactions often involve highly contextual pro-
cesses of negotiating and balancing tensions between the familiar and unfamiliar, or between talk
that has seemed acceptable or unacceptable in other kinds of conversations. We observed how a ther-
apist, mother, and daughter negotiated speaking roles (e.g., therapist/client) and ways of interacting
(e.g., speaking for oneself/the other). We showed how these interventive processes are cocreated by
therapists and clients who have a stake in the relationships, meanings, and identities being discussed.

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is used to study how abuse, dominance, and inequality are
enacted, reproduced, and resisted through using text and talk in social and political contexts. By
analyzing semiotic data, critical discourse analysts aim to demystify ideologies and power (Wodak,
2004). They take explicit positions to understand, expose, and resist social inequality (van Dijk,
2001), claiming social interactions can be understood interdiscursively (Fairclough, 1995, 2001).
Discourses, in CDA, share family resemblances (Wittgenstein, 1953) that become evident in
social interactions, through different cultural understandings (e.g., on motherhood or work

176 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2016

relations). When informing family members’ ways of relating, such differences in discourse can
problematically invoke and sustain tensions, competitions, and oppositions between members (cf.
Shi-xu, 2005). This may occur when parents of adolescents are faced with entering the workforce
or making career choices. Families may need to renegotiate how they orient (i.e., relate) to each
other as family members, given that they may invoke different cultural discourses (e.g., influenced
by generational differences in understanding the workforce) when choosing a career or a job.
Critical discourse analysts aim to identify nonobvious connections between discourse and
other elements of social processes, including those contributing to unequal relations of power.
CDA research is helpful for changing people’s lives for the better—even if “better” is an ongoing
source of debate and assessment (Fairclough, 2001). CDA can help to understand how people such
as therapists and clients coconstruct meaning with each other. Its use can show how they recognize
each other’s communications as different ways to understand a situation, or conversely, show how
they deny each other’s communications by imposing their own ideas and assumptions (van Dijk,
2001; Kogan & Gale, 1997). Problematic use of discourse can produce and reproduce power
relations making evident how power relations and discourses are enacted and resisted.

Critical Discourse Analysis and the IOI

In using a conversational intervention like the IOI, cultural discourses can be acknowledged
and sometimes challenged or resisted by therapists. In analyzing lines 78–85 (see Table 2), from a
CDA perspective, cultural discourses can be shown to feature between T, M, and D over what
was “there” (in the IOI) and what resulted from their use of recognizable cultural discourses
(Fairclough, 1989).

Resisting a Discourse of Deficit

In line 78, rather than asking about a problem, T invites the internalized D in M to discuss a
positive aspect of their relationship: what D appreciates the most about M. T’s question seems to
present a challenge to M (in line 79, she responds, “oh! this is getting more difficult”); to speak
appreciatively of herself as a mother while speaking for her daughter. It takes two further conver-
sational turns before M can respond as D in line 83, “the compassion.”
T’s question could be seen as inviting resistance to a dominant discourse of what therapy
“should” entail as therapists tend to focus on clients’ problems, not on their strengths (e.g.,
Gergen, 1991; Heritage & Clayman, 2010; Parsons, 1951). M’s hesitancy to respond to T’s question
may be influenced by this dominant discourse of problem-focused therapy. Therapists are also
commonly seen as asking questions, while clients respond. M’s focus on “compassion” or “caring
for others” can be seen as a way dealing with two different discourses at play: T expects M to
respond to the question, despite T’s question being uncommon or unexpected. Possibly, to deal
with this discrepancy, M responds first with a safe self-description, associated with commonly
viewed positive characteristics in a mother, being nurturing, emotional, empathic, and vulnerable.
Dominant or common discourses can be seen at play in how the participants invoke particular
characteristics to describe themselves. T, however, rather than assuming what M means by com-
passion, asks what else she appreciates (line 91). By doing so, we view T as inviting M into a more
personal or even committed space to describe herself through the internalized D’s voice. This can
be seen as opening conversational space for M and D’s unique relationship to be talked about.
In our view, the internalized D’s responses at this point seem to be more in tune with T’s
search for more personal meaning rather than as responses expected in dialogue between a thera-
pist and client. We notice how T carefully constructs his turns to invite the internalized D to pro-
vide a richer account of her relationship with M. In lines 86–88, M (as D) responds by describing
“herself” as a caring person. T continues to explore what the internalized D appreciates about
her mother. It is interesting to note here how “caring for others” is first presented with a sense of
duty or responsibility (line 87) and then as something a person may have a passion for (line
87,”(well likes) all about”). In line 89, T offers M his understanding that “a big part of her life”
has been dedicated to help others, confirmed by M (as D) in the next turn (line 90, “Yeah”).
In lines 91–92, T continues to explore what M (as D) respects about her mother, an invitation
M takes up in the next turn. T’s question invites M to speak from other (nondominant) discourses
about being a mother. He could have explored further about “being compassionate;” however, he

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 177

choose to continue exploring other positive qualities. As a result, M (as D) and T carefully contin-
ued using the IOI’s conversational process to jointly “resist” a dominant discourse of deficit, by
negotiating and articulating a richer account of D’s appreciation for M. We suggest that T used his
position of relative, social/role-bound “power” (as a Caucasian, male, Western, psychiatrist/thera-
pist) to privilege the internalized D to challenge this nondominant or appreciative way of talking
about M (in “appreciative inquiries” see Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2005; De Jong & Berg,
2002; White, 2007).

Resisting an Internalized Oppressive Discourse

Dominant discourses may become oppressive and harmful when they foreclose on self-
understandings in ways that misrecognize peoples’ preferred ways of being (Taylor, 1994). Such
discourses influence enacting the IOI in noticeable responses by M to T’s questioning invita-
tions (and vice versa). Consider M’s reactions in her answers to T’s questions in lines 101–104.
She exhibited discomfort with her nervous laughter, as her face turned red (line 101), and
T subsequently remarked on M’s “trouble” (“I see. ‘D’ let me ask you does your mom have
trouble appreciating herself?”).
From a CDA perspective (Fairclough, 1995), we see T and M’s interaction as influenced by a
dominant/oppressive discourse, one that prescribes what people are not supposed to talk about.
While we cannot convincingly interpret the content of such an oppressive discourse with the avail-
able data, dominant gendered ideas about Western women or mothers in Canada, such as being
described or describing themselves in common “feminine” (e.g., as primarily compassionate or
caring) ways. Following lines 91–92, T’s question invites M to speak from other discourses on
being a mother (e.g., “what else you appreciate and respect in your mom, ‘D’?”). T’s question
proposes a collaborative stance to search for further preferred possibilities of being, rather than
assuming that “being compassionate” is the only positive quality for M (in her daughter’s words).
M’s response (lines 95–97) differs from her prior description of being compassionate. As the inter-
nalized D, she highlights another positive quality: overcoming things in her life that others may
have been unable to handle.
Possibly, T’s IOI questions (e.g., lines 91, 94) facilitate an emancipatory effect (van Dijk,
2001), by inviting M (as D) to self-describe beyond stereotyped ideas or discourses about women/
mothers, such as being strong and having to learn from hardships. CDA-informed analysis
prompted us to further consider how conversing beyond the gendered discourse could be beneficial
in the IOI process (e.g., What’s difficult about this? is this informed by dominant ideas about
women or mothers? where did these ideas come from? see also Rogers-de Jong & Strong, 2014;
Strong, Rogers, & Merritt, 2014).
Critical discourse analysis also helps researchers explore how dominant discourses feature in
how speakers position themselves when responding. It helps researchers to understand and high-
light ways in which coconstructing meaning, and making sense of each other’s lives is influenced
by dominant discourses. In the same way, a therapist could explore or deconstruct together with
clients, how certain ideas or particular meanings influence their talk, and how they make sense of
their relationships with others.

ETHNOMETHODOLOGICALLY INFORMED DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Ethnomethodology informed discourse analysis (EMDA; Wooffitt, 2005) enables researchers

to examine how participants talk into being relevant social phenomena such as institutional activi-
ties (e.g., the IOI) or conversational realities (e.g., participants’ identity descriptions within such
institutional activities). Although EMDA researchers have traditionally analyzed how institutional
practices are normatively maintained through talk (Heritage & Clayman, 2010; McHoul & Rapley,
2001), these methods can also be used to analyze how people negotiate and change such normative
practices. Following Sutherland, Sametband, Gaete, Couture, and Strong (2012), we examined
participants’ (ethno) methods used in conversationally working out their preferences: How clients
negotiate, during the back and forth of the IOI talk, their preferred identities and relationships
(i.e., their preferred ways of understanding/relating to one another). We analyzed the interview
transcripts, for how participants accomplished various interactional tasks in their turn-by-turn

178 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2016

exchanges. In particular, we attended to and looked for instances of invitations and responses
guiding the conversational work of coconstructing preferred identities in using the IOI.

Identity Work: Conversationally Accomplishing Preferred Self-Understandings

Analogous to Goffman’s (1967) studies on face-work, “identity work” refers to the process
through which therapists and clients describe and present themselves and others during the thera-
peutic process. We see clients and therapists conversationally accomplishing preferred identities
through recognizable agreements on identity descriptions, accounts, and performances. Thus, we
examine identity descriptions (e.g., “she is compassionate”), accounts (e.g., “she is compassionate
because. . .”), and performances (e.g., how one “does” being compassionate), including the meth-
ods by which participants observably treat those identities as preferred. What these descriptions
accomplish in and from the IOI dialogue’s back and forth interactions is what we call identity
work.
When we noticed a discursive identity taken up, and evidence that such identity-responses
were accepted, we identified this as a conversationally accomplished “identity.” However, partici-
pants treat some identity invitations as needing further conversational work, to be accepted, such
as in lines 82–84 (see Table 2). In line 83, we see M responding to T’s invitation (question) in line
82 with an acknowledgement, but not an acceptance. Speakers can observably acknowledge such
an identity-invitation by treating it as acceptable, or as (still) problematic (see Antaki, Condor, &
Levine, 1996; Drewery, 2005; Suoninen & Wahlstr€ om, 2009; Wetherell, 1998). An identity descrip-
tion responded to as acceptable could be seen as a conversational accomplishment. Alternatively,
an identity invitation may be problematic when the conversational partner treats it as accountable
(i.e., as needing further elaboration or “identity work”). For example, in line 84, T treats M’s previ-
ous response as incomplete, or, as an accountable response (i.e., needing more conversational
work; Heritage, 1984). Here, T suggests that M provide further elaborate on her identity descrip-
tion. Subsequently, T may in turn orient to M’s new account as either acceptable or accountable
(i.e., an identity accomplishment or as a still problematic contribution).
In Table 2’s excerpt, we see T, D, and M (as D) conversationally accomplishing at least three
preferred identities for M: being compassionate, being strong, and being modest. The first two
identities were accomplished explicitly; evident in how participants accepted such occasioned de-
scriptors as “compassionate” and “strong.” In the third instance of identity work, a “modest”
identity descriptor was performed and accomplished in participants’ performances or observable
responses to one another (Goffman, 1967; Taylor, 1989). We examine both forms of identity work:
inviting/accepting preferred identity formulations, and inviting/accepting recognizable preferred
identity performances.
Inviting acceptance of identity formulations in the public space. The identity formulation
begins in line 78 when T asks the internalized D in M what she respects most about M. In response,
M treats T’s invitation as problematic (“oh! this is getting more difficult”), inviting T to perform
further “work” to make his invitation more acceptable to M (line 82). When T responds (“yeah”),
he treats M’s understanding as appropriate (i.e., she may be uncomfortable), but persists and
restates his invitation with a reflexive question (Tomm, 1987a, 1987b); specifically, he asks
a “what-identity” question (cf. White, 2007). This question invites M to provide an identity
description in her reply (“the compassion,” line 85). T responds to M’s answer as partially ade-
quate, adding a “where-question,” (lines 84–85, “where would you see your mom as being compas-
sionate?”), inviting M to engage in further identity work. Next, she offers the “required” account
for her previous partly adequate yet “accountable” descriptor (Heritage, 1984, p. 108) in lines 86–
88 (“. . .I think my mom gives- uhm a lot to the people she cares about. she’s had the chance to
work with disabled children, she’s learned from them. . .”). In line 89, T observably displays his
understanding of M’s identity that seemed at stake by offering a formulation (“ok, so. . .”; cf.
Antaki, 2008), which invites M’s acceptance in line 90, the first identity accomplishment in the
excerpt.
From lines 91–99, a similar dialogical negotiation coconstructs a second identity accomplish-
ment. In line 91, T initiates a new sequence using a new what-identity question (“what else you
appreciate and respect in your mom. . .”), which M responds to with the descriptor “strength” in
line 93. Again, T treats this descriptor as accountable (line 94), inviting M to upgrade her account

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 179

in lines 95–97 (“she’s had to overcome a few things in her life that you know some people might
not have been able to handle at times. . .”). T follows with a similar “ok so” preface (ten Have,
2007), marking his contribution in line 98 as a formulation (Antaki, 2008) of M’s preferred
identity. Similar to the previous sequence, T’s formulation invited M’s acceptance in line 99, as a
second identity accomplishment (note that there is a further formulation-acceptance sequence in
lines 106–107).
Inviting acceptance of identity performances as recognizable discursive positions. People pres-
ent discursive positions as their subjectivities (i.e., self-understanding and identity) in recogniz-
able ways within a storyline understood by a particular speech community—a local moral
order (e.g., Davies & Harr
e, 1990). The moral aspect in a local order reflects how different
positions in a storyline (e.g., being modest as opposed to bragging) can be differently valued—
these positions tend to be performed as preferences. Thus, through their discursive responses,
participants position themselves to underscore claims about who they are and how they should
be understood (Bamberg, De Fina, & Schiffrin, 2011; Goffman, 1967) by presenting themselves
in preferred ways.
In line 100, T continues calling M (as the internalized D) to account for M’s qualities
that are worthy of respect. Most notably in lines 103–111, we see M resist engaging in this
activity that could be culturally recognized as bragging (“oh! well this is ba:?d. I don’t like
doing this. . .((laughs)). . .”). We categorize these participants’ performances as being oriented
to a (third) preferred identity: “being modest.” Notice how M displays reluctance to accept
T’s invitation to appreciate herself (lines 103, 107, 109). In line 110, T treats M’s reluctance
as accountable (“oh, really!”), as though she is violating the local moral order. Despite T’s
call, M insists on marking such an identity or discursive “position” as dispreferred (“this is
not good! this is getting erased! ((laughing)),” line 111). In turn, T resists this interpretation
as the only one possible; by asking in line 112 if she, as D, would appreciate if M were able
to accept some appreciation from others. Thus, T invited M to consider a different, more pre-
ferred positioning: to be understood as someone who does not engage in “bragging” (dispre-
ferred), but rather as someone who is open to “accepting some appreciation from others”
(preferred). Later M states, “I think she does,” confirming T’s projected (“modest”) identity
for her.
Positioning theorists would see M consistently (lines 79, 101, 103, 107, 109, 111) “per-
forming” her resistance to T’s position “calls” (Drewery, 2005). We interpret M’s use of
laughter and humor as ethnomethods to express her reluctance to answer T’s questions. We
see M’s difficulty with answering T’s invitations (lines 79, 101, 103, 107, 109, 111) not as an
inability to skillfully answer the questions, but as a moral difficulty. If M accepted T’s invita-
tion to “brag,” she would struggle to perform an acceptable identity. Alternatively, we see
“being modest” as a preferred identity to perform because M and T’s discursive, responsive
performances cocreated or negotiated such a M-preferred identity. We see T, M, and D jointly
accomplishing identity preferences both by accepting explicit identity descriptions and by
performing preferred ways of being understood when accepting the morally implicating
invitations from each other.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

Constructionist social science would benefit from taking seriously the issue of construction.
Rather than treating construction as a taken-for-granted start point, it should consider construc-
tion and deconstruction as a central and researchable feature of human affairs. (Potter, 1996,
p. 206).
Our examination of Karl Tomm’s Internalized Other Interviewing (IOI) aimed to shed light
on how it is used by both clients and therapists as a conversational practice. We see the IOI as a
constructionist practice (McNamee & Gergen, 1992), as therapists and clients discursively cocon-
struct the intervention process and outcomes together. Following Potter’s words above, construc-
tionist research methods are best suited to examine constructionist conversational practice such as
the IOI, so we chose to use discursive analytic methods. We used three forms of discursive analy-
ses: Gubrium and Holstein’s narrative analysis; Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis; and

180 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2016

Ethnomethodologically informed discourse analysis—to provide an up-close examination of how
the IOI was used in a therapeutic dialogue between Tomm and a mother and daughter. Through
each discursive form of discursive analysis (see Table 1), we highlighted different elements relevant
to using the IOI in face-to-face dialogue in therapy.
As an unconventional conversational practice, our initial analyses (Gubrium and Holstein’s
Narrative approach) highlighted different contextual features relevant to initiating and using the
IOI. The questions of the IOI invite speakers to depart from conventional everyday and therapeu-
tic talk, to speak in ways that elsewhere might be considered rude (i.e., presuming we are able to
speak for another person). As seen in our study, inviting such unfamiliar and potentially unaccept-
able forms of talking involves careful conversational work, particularly when “talking for” a fam-
ily member who is present. These unfamiliar ways of talking occur against a backdrop of other
conversational expectations also shaping the conversation—for both therapist and client. There is
an element of such questions inviting somewhat improvised answers, and with such invitations
come somewhat improvised dialogues that can be adventures into the unfamiliar and possibly
unacceptable.
Family therapists introducing a new atypical intervention strategy (e.g., IOI) might “breach”
(Garfinkel, 1967) what is expected, despite being potentially therapeutic for those involved. This
fits with Tomm’s (1988) notion that therapists’ questions be seen as “interventive.” Therapists
might find it useful to invite families into unfamiliar conversational practices (e.g., speaking as
though they are the other) with their questions, to explore new and potentially preferred stories
and understandings of family practices and members’ identities.
Our use of CDA was intended to bring out discursive differences, and how these are nego-
tiated (or not) in the back and forth of dialogue between therapist and clients. In Tomm’s col-
laborative approach to practice, meanings and discourses are not imposed on clients; instead
clients are invited to conversationally make the conversational process and outcomes fit their
preferences. Our analyses show Tomm carefully negotiating with his clients, incorporating their
meaning-making influence to guide these processes and outcomes (cf. Sutherland & Strong,
2011). Discursive collaboration is evident in how therapist and client shape such ways and out-
comes of talking. Therapists can invite clients to challenge and examine dominant discourses
that are unhelpful or constraining their lives. Similarly, analytic methods such as CDA can help
therapists reflexively identify discourses they draw from and use in conversing with clients.
Our third discursive approach to analyzing the IOI examined the microlevel ethnomethods
used by therapist and clients in doing “identity work.” This part of our analysis underscored how
preferences are at stake in the identity work of therapeutic dialogues. Specifically, we showed how
identity was accomplished explicitly (such as when the client agreed to an identity description) or
performed in a more implicit yet preferred way, following rejections of the therapist’s preferred dis-
course (interpreted by the client as “bragging”).
Therapists might attend to clients’ identity performances (and their own), as these are negoti-
ated dialogically through invitations and responses, enabling opportunities for therapists to invite
clients into new, preferred identities. This form of discursive analysis makes evident the ethno-
methods, or micro-responses, people show each other yet largely escape notice. By examining the
often taken-for-granted micro features of therapeutic conversations, therapists can engage in
greater reflexivity (see also Couture & Strong, 2004) and can begin to attend to the microdynamics
(e.g., Couture & Sutherland, 2006) of their therapeutic conversations.
Together, these three discursive methods of analysis show in-micro how any conversational
intervention might be used in therapy. Knowing about how context features in the use of such
interventions, how meaning making may be dominated, and how the micro-interactions during the
intervention lead to relevant therapeutic accomplishments, are aspects of what we refer to as con-
versational work in therapy. That work, as we represent it, is dialogic, meaning that the processes
of intervening are negotiated in the face-to-face aspects of dialogue, and with regard to other
relevant features of therapy, such as institutional policies and procedures.
Regarding the IOI itself, we wanted to show its use in one passage of therapeutic dialogue, as
seen through the lenses of three different discursive methods. Typically, interventions like the IOI
are described as conversational protocols to be followed. Seen nondialogically, such protocols are
performed or administered to clients in script-like ways of communicating. However, as most prac-

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 181

titioners recognize, any conversational intervention in therapy involves aspects of dialogue to be
introduced, accepted, and made use of. Such interventions are not administered to nonresponsive
clients. What we think is helpful to therapists from our analyses are considerations—some contex-
tual and some focused on the immediate responsiveness of therapeutic dialogue—to make the
conversational work of therapy collaborative and preference oriented (Sutherland et al., 2012).
We have also showed a “back and forthness” in this conversational work that is often missing from
the interventions literature.

Beyond this Session

Our analyses focused on a unique conversational intervention, Karl Tomm’s Internalized
Other Interviewing (IOI), and features relevant to its conversational use in therapy. Some of these
features would be relevant to other conversational interventions in therapy. The accomplishments
identified in our work were only evident in the immediate talk of this therapy session; whether
these were more enduring accomplishments is beyond the scope of our analyses. Thus, for the
immediate outcomes of this dialogue to transcend beyond the therapeutic encounter, requires
further work by clients in their dialogues beyond therapy (Dreier, 2008).
By examining the IOI, our interest has been with sensitizing therapists to what transpires in
the immediacies of their talking with clients. This kind of sensitivity to how their questions and
responses to clients occasion new kinds of conversations, and new accomplishments in dialogue, is
important to using the conversational practices of therapy collaboratively and generatively. The
IOI, like other constructionist conversational practices (e.g., the Miracle question, Strong & Pyle,
2009), can be seen to construct outcomes in therapy, only if therapists mindfully and reflexively
attend to how they use such practices, for what they elicit as responses. The IOI can invite a very
different kind of dialogue than what clients expect and thus much can be gained from attending to
what goes into and from its use.

REFERENCES

Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Per€akyl€a, C. Antaki, S. Vehvil€ainen & I. Leudar (Eds.),
Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 26–42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Antaki, C., Condor, S., & Levine, M. (1996). Social identities in talk: Speakers’ own orientations. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 35, 473–492. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01109.x.
Avdi, E. (2005). Discursively negotiating a pathological identity in the clinical dialogue: Discourse analysis of a family
therapy. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 78, 1–19. doi:10.1348/147608305X52586.
Bamberg, M. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 335–
342. Retrieved January 5, 2015 from http://www.clarku.edu/~mbamberg/Pages_Journals/journal-narra-
tive.html
Bamberg, M., De Fina, A., & Schiffrin, D. (2011). Discourse and identity construction. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx &
V. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 177–199). New York, NY: Springer.
Bar-On, D. (1999). The indescribable and the undiscussable: Reconstructing human discourse after trauma. Budapest,
Hungary: Central European University Press.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Brandt, A. C., Vonk, R., & van Knippenberg, A. (2009). The source effect: Person descriptions by self versus others
have differential effects on impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 965–977.
doi:10.1177/0146167209335056.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2005). Appreciative inquiry handbook: The first in a series of AI
workbooks for leaders of change. Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing.
Couture, S. J. (2005). Moving forward: Therapy with an adolescent and his family. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Calgary, Alberta.
Couture, S. J., & Strong, T. (2004). Turning differences into possibilities: Using discourse analysis to investigate
change in therapy with adolescents and their families. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 4(1), 91–101.
doi:10.1080/14733140412331384098.
Couture, S. J., & Sutherland, O. (2006). Giving advice on advice-giving: A conversation analysis of Karl Tomm’s
practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 329–344. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01610.x.

182 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2016

Davies, B., & Harr
e, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x.
De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2002). Interviewing for solutions (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
van Dijk, E. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of
discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Diorinou, M., & Tseliou, E. (2014). Studying circular questioning “in situ”: Discourse analysis of a first systemic
family therapy session. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 40(1), 106–121. doi:10.1111/jmft.12005.
Dreier, O. (2008). Psychotherapy in everyday life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Drewery, W. (2005). Why we should watch what we say: Position calls, everyday speech and the production of rela-
tional subjectivity. Theory & Psychology, 15, 305–324. doi:10.1177/0959354305053217.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution.
Psychological Review, 100, 23–41. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.23.
Emmerson-Whyte, B. (2010). Learning the craft: An “Internalised Other” interview with a couple. International Jour-
nal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 8(2), 3–21. Retrieved January 5, 2015 from: http://www.narrative-
therapylibrary.com/learning-the-craft-an-internalised-other-interview-with-a-couple.html
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York, NY: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Essex, UK: Pearson Education
Limited.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In A. McHoul & M. Rapley (Eds.), How to analyse talk in institu-
tional settings: A casebook of methods (pp. 12–24). London, UK: Continuum.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York, NY: Basic books.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2009). Analyzing narrative reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harr
e, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.) (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Black-
well.
Hurley, D. (2006). “Internalized Other” interviewing of children exposed to violence. Journal of Systemic Therapies,
25(2), 50–63. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2006.25.2.50.
Kogan, S. (1998). The politics of making meaning: Discourse analysis of a ‘postmodern’ interview. Journal of Family
Therapy, 20, 229–251. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.00085.
Kogan, S., & Gale, J. (1997). Decentering therapy: Textual analysis of a narrative therapy session. Family Process,
36, 101–126. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1997.00101.x.
Lock, A., & Strong, T. (Eds.) (2012). Discursive perspectives on therapeutic practice. New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Massfeller, H. F., & Strong, T. (2012). Clients as conversational agents. Patient Education and Counseling, 88(2), 196–
202. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.014.
McHoul, A., & Rapley, M. (2001). How to analyze talk in institutional settings. New York, NY: Continuum.
McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.) (1992). Therapy as social construction. London, UK: Sage.
Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 144–167.
doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1979.00003.x.
O’Reilly, M. (2007). Who’s a naughty boy then? Accountability, family therapy, and the “naughty” child. The Family
Journal: Counseling and therapy for couples and families, 15, 234–243. doi:10.1177/1066480707301316.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. New York, NY: Free Press.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogers-de Jong, M., & Strong, T. (2014). Co-constructing “we” and “us”: Joint talk and storytelling with cohabitat-
ing couples. Narrative Inquiry, 24, 368–385. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ni.24.2.10jon
deShazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Shi-xu (2005). A cultural approach to discourse. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities. London, UK: Sage.
Sprenkle, D. H., & Fisher, B. L. (1980). An empirical assessment of the goals of family therapy. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 6(2), 131–139. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1980.tb01297.x.
Strong, T. (2007). Accomplishments in social constructionist counseling: Micro-analytic and retrospective analyses.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4(1–2), 85–105. doi:10.1080/14780880701473466.
Strong, T., Busch, R., & Couture, S. (2008). Conversational evidence in therapeutic dialogue. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 34, 388–405. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00079.x.

January 2016 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 183

Strong, T., & Pyle, N. R. (2009). Constructing a conversational ‘miracle’: Examining the ‘miracle question’ as it is
used in therapeutic dialogue. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 22, 328–353. doi:10.1080/
10720530903114001.
Strong, T., & Pyle, N. R. (2012). Negotiating exceptions to clients’ problem discourse in consultative dialogue. Psy-
chology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 85(1), 100–116. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8341.2010.02013.x.
Strong, T., Rogers, M., & Merritt, S. (2014). Co-authoring “we-ness” and stories of intimacy. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 36, 398–408. doi:10.1007/s10591-014-9304-8.
Strong, T., & Tomm, K. (2007). Family therapy as re-coordinating and moving on together. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 26, 42–54. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2007.26.2.42.
Strong, T., & Turner, K. (2008). Resourceful dialogues: Eliciting and mobilizing client competencies and resources.
Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 38, 185–195. doi:10.1007/s10879-008-9076-2
Suoninen, E., & Wahlstr€ om, J. (2009). Interactional positions and the production of identities: Negotiating father-
hood in family therapy talk. Communication & Medicine, 6, 199–209. doi:10.1558/cam.v6i2.199.
Sutherland, O., & Couture, S. (2007). The discursive performance of alliance in family therapy: A conversation ana-
lytic perspective. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 210–217. doi:10.1375/
anft.28.4.210.
Sutherland, O., Sametband, I., Gaete, J., Couture, S. J., & Strong, T. (2012). Conversational perspective of therapeu-
tic outcomes: The importance of preference in the development of discourse. Counselling and Psychotherapy
Research, 13, 220–226. doi:10.1080/14733145.2012.742917.
Sutherland, O. A., & Strong, T. (2011). Therapeutic collaboration: A conversation analysis of constructionist ther-
apy. Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 256–278. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2010.00500.x.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Guttman (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recog-
nition (pp. 25–74). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tomm, K. (1987a). Interventive interviewing: Part I. Strategizing as a fourth guideline for the therapist. Family Pro-
cess, 26, 2–13. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00003.x.
Tomm, K. (1987b). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reflexive questioning as a means to enable self-healing. Family
Process, 26, 153–183. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00167.x.
Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, reflexive and strategic ques-
tions? Family Process, 27, 1–15. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1988.00001.x.
Tomm, K. (2013). Internalised other interviewing. Presented at Intensive Systemic Family Therapy Externship, Cal-
gary Family Therapy Centre, Calgary, Canada.
Tomm, K., Wulff, D., St. George, S., & Strong, T. (Eds.) (2014). Coupled invitations: Co-constructing relational stabil-
ities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dia-
logue. Discourse & Society, 9, 387–412. doi:10.1177/0957926598009003005.
White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York, NY: Norton.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative
research practice (pp. 186–202). London, UK: Sage.
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

184 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2016