Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies: A Twenty-Year Retrospective

TLDR

The 1991 TC 1 Conference in Tulsa was a landmark event that advanced postmodern therapies, and the field now operates within an evidence‑based, recovery‑model, positive‑psychology, strength‑based, resilience‑focused climate. The article traces the evolution of narrative and solution‑focused therapy since TC 1 from the authors’ distinct yet overlapping perspectives and discusses the implications of current developments for their future. The authors analyze the perils and possibilities of contemporary trends and speculate on how these may shape the future of both approaches. They report being profoundly influenced by the TC 1 summit, noting that while the two therapies have become increasingly differentiated since 1993, a hybrid of narrative and solution‑focused methods is now emerging among new practitioners, a shift not anticipated by earlier generations.

Abstract

The Therapeutic Conversations (TC 1) Conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1991 was a historic event in the advancement of postmodern therapies. We (David, a narrative therapist, and Jeff, a solution-focused therapist) were profoundly affected by this summit of the pioneering voices in narrative, solution-focused, strategic, and systemic therapy. This article highlights the evolution of both narrative and solution-focused therapy since TC 1 from our distinct, but overlapping vantage points. We have noted the increased differentiation of these approaches therapies since they were first compared (Chang & Phillips, 1993). While this differentiation is significant, we note that a hybrid of narrative and solution-focused therapy is being practiced among new practitioners, a development that may not have been predicted or hoped for by first and second-generation narrative and solution-focused therapists. This development is situated within the current climate of evidence-based practice, the recovery model of mental health, positive psychology, strength-based approaches, and the recent emphasis on resilience. Finally, we comment on the perils and possibilities of current developments and speculate as to what this might mean for the future of both approaches.