Fam Proc 33:247-262, 1994 Therapy with Refugee Families: What Is a "Good" Conversation? SlSSEL REICHELT, Ph.D a NORA SVEAASS, Ph.D b a Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Box 1094, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway. b Chief Psychologist, Psychosocial Centre for Refugees, University of Oslo, Norway. This article addresses the question of what is a "good" conversation by analyzing "poor" conversations. During a project on family therapy with refugee families, we often experienced what we labeled as "poor" conversations. We present examples of a variety of such conversations, which we then analyze with reference to therapeutic maps and central concerns of the therapists. We describe four patterns of therapist/client relationships that emerged from this analysis. The main focus of our discussion is to clarify when "poor" conversations may be an important part of the therapeutic process, and when and how they should be avoided. We believe that the issues we raise are central to therapeutic work in general and not just to therapy with refugee families. This article is based on clinical experiences during a project on therapeutic work with refugee families. Particularly, we have wanted to extend our understanding of how a choice of various approaches from the current family therapy field have contributed to our conversations with the families. Over the recent years, influential voices in the family therapy field have moved from cybernetics to linguistics, hermeneutics, and social constructionism, from action to reflection, and from the therapist as a powerful interventionist to the therapist as a good conversationalist. An important part of this movement is the emphasis on the client as expert on his or her own life and problems. The role of the therapist has changed from detecting what is wrong and correcting it, to participating in conversations with the client system in a way that makes it possible for the system to find its own solutions (Tjersland, 1990). The therapist may take a position of "not-knowing" (Goolishian & Anderson, 1992, p. 13), and move into the system with a concrete and naive questioning aimed at changing the languaging that maintains the problems so that new narratives may emerge (to use the terminology of Anderson & Goolishian, 1988; Goolish-ian and Anderson, 1992). The therapist may bring other voices into the conversations, with the option of creating new openings through nonauthoritarian impressions and ideas from a reflecting position (Andersen, 1987). The therapist may also use questioning strategically, aiming at expanding perspectives in the client system (Boscolo, Cecchin, Hoffman, & Penn, 1987; Tomm, 1987a,b; Tomm, 1988). And the therapist may consciously search for strengths and solutions in the client system through investigating exceptions to the problems (de Shazer, 1988) or "unique outcomes" (White and Epston, 1990). When we started a project with refugee families, we had these ideas in mind. We had been inspired by them for several years, and one of the authors (S.R.) had found them useful in a project on drug addicts, their families, and helping systems (Reichelt & Christensen, 1990). We considered the position of "not knowing" interesting because we were working with refugee families from different countries and cultures. We assumed that it could give us a basis for a thorough exploration of phenomena unknown to us, and give the families an opportunity to be experts in relation to important aspects of their lives. We considered the position of reflection and perspective-expanding questions to be particularly interesting because of the "dark tunnels" we expected many of the families to live in, enclosed by past misery and dubious expectations for the future. And in the same vein, we considered a solution-oriented approach useful in bringing forth strength and coping potentials in the families. THE CONTEXT OF OUR WORK Literature Review Reading through a considerable body of literature on refugee families, traumatized families, and families in cultural transition, we were struck by the attempts to find regularities and gain knowledge about typical cultural issues and typical family conflicts arising from culture and exile (Bemak, 1989; Rumbaut & Rumbaut, 1976; Sluzki, 1979). In the studies that focused on family therapy, the emphasis has been on problems rather than on potentialities, on conflicts and structural dysfunctions rather than on potentialities. Also, knowledge of specific cultural features has been described as important for a therapist (Chambon, 1989). The studies are mostly related to families from specific cultures (Arreondo, Orjurla, & Moore, 1989; Hong, 1989). This literature increased our sensitivity to cultural issues and acculturation problems, and we became aware of some important therapeutic! issues. As we worked in a context with families from many different cultures, however, our main! concern was to develop an approach that in a general sense might be useful across cultures, allowing for cultural sensitivity without being "tailor-made" to a specific culture. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1