Narrative Approaches for Professionals
Supporting People on the Autism Spectrum on Their Way to Employment
The NARRATE approach lays its foundation on the Narrative Approach (NA, White & Epston, 1990; Morgan, 2000). Narrative approaches to counselling and community work centre people as the experts in their own lives and views problems as separate from people. NA assumes that people have many skills, competencies, beliefs, values, commitments, and abilities that will assist them to reduce the influence of problems in their lives (Dulwich Centre Publications, 2009).
NA involves ways of understanding the stories of people’s lives and ways of re-authoring these stories in collaboration between the professional and the people whose lives are being discussed. It is a way of working that is interested in history, the broader context that is affecting people’s llives,and the ethics or politics of this work (ibid.).
NA considers the problem as external to the person, located in the broader sociopolitical context and reflected in discourse rather than within the individual or family (Madigan & Law, 1998). This has led to a shift in the definition of what needs to be changed (Hoffman, 2002).
According to NA, we cannot have direct knowledge of the world; we can only know what we know through lived experience. We make sense of our lives and the lives of others by interpreting and attributing meaning to our experience. And we give meaning to our experience through language, through the stories we tell ourselves and/or others.
Thus, the word ‘narrative’ refers to the emphasis that is placed upon the stories of people’s lives and the differences that can be made through particular tellings and retellings of these stories.
The ‘narrative’ is more than a storytelling metaphor (Anderson, 1997). It is a dynamic process that constitutes both the way that we organise the events and experiences of our lives to make sense of them and the way we participate in creating the things we make sense of, including ourselves (ibid.). Consequently, the meaning we give to ourselves and the world is derived through structuring experience into stories (White & Epston, 1990).
Stories do not just represent us; they constitute us. They do not just represent life; they are constitutive of life (White, 1989). Stories are the foundations of the knowledge we have about ourselves and the world.
No story is outside power. Storying is dependent on language, as we ascribe meaning and constitute our lives and relationships through it. However, we can only construct stories through culturally available discourses.
A culturally available discourse (or narrative) is a system of words, actions, rules, and beliefs that share common values. Particular discourses sustain particular worldviews. We might even think of a discourse as a worldview in action (Freedman & Combs, 1996).
In society, some of these discourses are dominant, and some are weaker. For example, a very powerful discourse in Western society is about the existence of a knowable and universal truth. Such dominant discourse heavily influences the way we narrate our life experiences and develop our knowledge. It influences the vocabulary we use to tell our stories.
NA, however, states that this is not the only knowledge we have. Sometimes, we live experiences showing us that there is no universal truth. And we shape stories around this idea. The problem is that such alternative stories are disqualified by the dominant narratives. NA, then, seeks to resurrect the alternative stories that have been subjugated and marginalised by the dominant knowledge. This is a form of political action (Brow, 2003), as uncovering subjugated stories flaunts their possibility, which not only shows a rupture in the idea of universality but also reveals how knowledge discourses are practices of power—how knowledge and power are intertwined. For NA, techniques of power are not separate from the production of dominant knowledge. Our lived experience exists within a field or web of power/knowledge (ibid.). Thus, it can be seen that a domain of knowledge is a domain of power, and a domain of power is a domain of knowledge (White & Epston, 1990).
Power is everywhere; it is insidious, and we cannot act apart from it. It is constitutive largely through normalising truths. Foucault (1977/1994) attempts to trace how hierarchies of power are constructed in modernist thought and to uncover their effects on individuals. He sees the process of power relations taking place when modes of inquiry try to give themselves the status of sciences through objectifying ways of approaching subjects under study. Secondly, Foucault (1982/1994) points to “dividing practices” within society and scientific disciplines that seek to divide the subject inside himself or herself or from others. Finally, he points to the ways in which individual human beings are made into subjects through these practices. In examining the power relations at work in this process, he states: «This form of power that applies itself to immediate everyday life categorises the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, and imposes a law of truth on him that he must recognise and others have to recognise in him. It is a form of power that makes individuals subjects. There are two meanings of the word “subject”: subject to someone else by control and dependency and tied to his own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power that subjugates and makes subject to» (Foucault, 1982/1994, p. 331).
This understanding of power and knowledge put forth by Foucault is not the repressive power of force so commonly spoken of in everyday uses of the term “power.” Rather, as White and Epston (1990) point out, “Foucault argues that we predominantly experience the positive or constitutive effects of power, that we are subject to power through normalizing ‘truths’ that shape our lives and relationships” (p. 19). This power makes us into subjects by delimiting the ways in which we are able to conceive of our identities; it provides the language with which we determine the content of our self-knowledge and self-concepts. Foucault (1977/1997) argues that we must cease describing power in negative, repressive terms and instead see that «it ‘excludes,’ it ‘represses,’ it ‘censors,’ it ‘abstracts,’ it ‘masks,’ it ‘conceals.’ In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth» (p. 194).
NA seeks to identify the discourses that support problematic stories.
Locating problems in particular discourses helps professionals see people as separate from the problems that beset them. NA locates problems in discourses rather than in individual minds or in “dysfunctional families.”
If this perceptual shift is successful, the person can be introduced to a whole different world, one in which the discourses that support problems become more visible. In this world, we can more easily oppose, undermine, or alter the influence of those discourses, making robust, viable, non-problematic life stories more possible (Freedman & Combs, 1996).
As White and Epston (1990) warn: «If we accept that power and knowledge are inseparable […] and if we accept that we are simultaneously undergoing the effects of power and exercising power over others, then we are unable to take a benign view of our own practices. Nor are we able simply to assume that our practices are primarily determined by our motives or that we can avoid all participation in the field of power/knowledge through and examination of such personal motives» (p. 29).
Instead of an avoidance of the power and knowledge relations implicit in the professional relationship, these authors suggest that narrative practitioners must assume that they are always participating in such relations. NA suggests professionals critique their own practices and identify the contexts of ideas from which their practices come. This enables the narrative practitioners to identify effects, dangers, and limitations in their ideas and practices and turns their attention toward the keen awareness that social control—though avoided—is always a strong possibility within the professional helping relationships (Sanders, 2011).
NA offers a dynamic account of reality instead of a mechanical one (Pérez Cota, 2015). Consequently, individuals are given an active role in the creation of reality. People then become agents given their active engagement in the construction of reality (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). NA focuses on language’s creative functions. Language has previously been identified as carrying meanings at different levels (Derrida, 1967; Foucault, 1966). As such, it also became a means of carrying specific versions of reality. In order to share life experiences, lived events must be organised to fit a narrative structure. Specific events can be told in different ways to enhance or diminish some traits.
Narrative practitioners aim at deconstructing rigid views on life events promoted by “problem saturated narratives” (Gergen, 1985). These narratives focus on negative life events and obliterate alternative versions of a life story, giving the illusion that problem-saturated narratives represent reality. But there is a difference between life experiences and what agents create when sharing/narrating.
To understand the influential source of narratives, it is important to consider that agents are open systems with a bidirectional influential process (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). Bateson (1987) stated that any given system’s shape can be understood as the consequence of a restrictive influence that doesn’t allow alternative shapes. In this sense, Dennett (1998) encourages us to consider agents as centres of narrative gravity.
Bringing these theoretical elements together offers a comprehensive account of the narrative perspectives of the human psyche. Human beings, considered as agents, are meaning generators having particular ways of being in and relating to the world, others, and themselves (Limon Arce, 2012). Agents are dialogical systems constantly becoming exposed to particular cultural narratives carrying preconceived conceptions of reality (Ansay, 2015). As language is interiorised (Vygotsky, 1975), specific representations of reality are transmitted. Even further, internalised representations are experienced as inner traits instead of cultural ones (White, 1993).
Narratives become problematic when rigid but also when they corner agents in narratives opposed to their values and desires (White, 1990; 1993; 1995). More specifically, when dominant stories are problem-saturated. Narrative professionals work with consulting systems (Andersen, 1992) because they recognise that narratives are embedded in specific (cultural, familiar, economical, etc.) contexts. Agents’ social conditions situate them in different systems that influence reality, perception, interpretation, and comprehension through specific narratives.
Similarities between texts and narratives led to the hypothesis that problem saturated narratives could be deconstructed in order to promote fewer constraining ones (Epston, 1992).
In the context of professional helping and supporting relationships, agents present problem saturated narratives shaped and entertained within their influential (significant) contexts. Those narratives implicitly entertain cultural prototypes that may not be explicit to agents. By making them explicit, narrative practitioners encourage problem exteriorisation, which situates the agent as facing a problem instead of having one (White, 1993). By tracing narrative’s history, social representations are recognised and exteriorized. Agents are then given the opportunity to either accept or rebel against those cultural traits.
The unpacking of narratives entails a dialogical process in which (at least) two agents (the professional and the client) actively explore the consequences of implicitly internalised cultural traits. This process is essentially dialogical and requires an important dimension of cooperation and equality between the members of any therapeutic system. When layers of meanings of a narrative or a “text” are analysed, it opens up to the possibility of building and amplifying different perspectives (Limon Arce, 2012).
Thus, we could say that narrative practitioners are conversational experts who create an optimal environment through dialogical tools for problems to be externalised and outcomes to be historicised to restrain dominant problem-saturated narrative consequences. Problems are no longer fixed but rather re-analysed given that the problematic feature is not inherent to the events but rather a consequence of rigid frames of intelligibility (Limon Arce, 1997; 2012). That suggests that problems result from restrictive views of reality.
We hereby briefly present all the epistemological and theoretical approaches that inspired NA and consequently the NARRATE framework. However, to properly introduce such approaches, it is worthwhile to describe the worldviews that are still deeply affecting the way social work and helping professions are conceived, and that is challenged by these approaches: Modernism and Structuralism.
Modernist worldview is rooted in Enlightenment and was prevalent in the Western world during most of the Twentieth Century. The industrial revolution brought a different form of production and one new invention after the other. During the Twentieth Century, radios, cars, telephones, television, aeroplanes, spaceships, and computers were all invented. Medicine advanced in giant leaps, improving the life expectancy and quality of life of millions in developed nations. Science and technology were seen as an unlimited source of hope for the future (Shawver, 2005). The promise of continuous progress is what Gergen (1991) describes as the “grand narrative of modernism”: the idea that we are on a journey of ever-increasing improvement and achievement.
Gergen notes that social sciences were developed in the twentieth century with the ideal of finding the rules that can explain and predict human behaviour.
Psychology was redefined as a science, “and its participants adopted the methods, metatheories, and manners of the natural sciences” (Ibid., p. 30). One implication of this is the belief that people, like the world, can be known through observation and examination because we can also get to know a “true and accessible” self (Ibid.).
Structuralism, on the other hand, is a specific worldview arising within the broader modernist perspective. It denotes the belief that there are fundamental, unchanging structures that govern everything, from the cosmos to the behaviour of minute particles. A Thomas (2002) points out: «Methods of scientific investigation were developed in order to learn about these structures. It was accepted that scientific objective exploration could provide reliable, valid, and universally applicable knowledge of the physical world. This approach led to some enormously significant developments in the physical sciences, and the inventions and technologies that spread from this have transformed the world in many ways. Not surprisingly, these “structuralist” ideas then went on to influence the social sciences, and people in a whole range of disciplines (anthropology, linguistics, sociology, psychology, family therapy) began to look for the underlying internal “structures” of people, families, societies, culture, language, etc.» (p. 85).
One of the effects of the ‘structuralist’ perspective in the social sciences was to foster the understanding that people can be studied in the same way that objects are studied. This involved seeing people as separate, discrete units, unrelated to others. Structuralism also implied that it was possible to study other people impartially and objectively. It was these ways of looking at the world that had led to so many ‘discoveries’ in the physical sciences. These ideas became very popular: they circled the world, and there are now few places where structuralist ideas have not taken hold (ibid.).
The modern and structuralist perspective is grounded in a positivist epistemology that supposes the existence of a reality independent from the observer that we can access directly and know objectively. The modern ideal is that truth can be found through the scientific method. Grenz says, “The modern mind assumes that knowledge is certain, objective, and good” (1996, p. 4). From this perspective, knowledge is seen as a reflection or a mirror of reality, and language is thought of as representational—its function is to give us a correct representation of the world (Anderson, 1997).
Several thinkers emerged during the Twentieth Century (for example, Mihail Bakhtin, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean-Francois, Lyotard, Richard Rorty, and Ludwig Wittgenstein) and observed that those who believe in the transcendent powers of universal truths arrived at either by revelation (in religious fundamentalism) or by rational thought seek to fashion both the natural and social world according to those universal principles.
Having discovered the true nature of the self and society, those possessed of this truth all too often seek to abolish difference through force in the name of collectivism and historical inevitability. The pursuit of equality is inclined to crush the expression of freedom. As dominant narratives, universal truths first become normative before they eventually become coercive. The “abnormal”, aberrant, and different are either corrected or eliminated. The pursuit of scientific truths in human affairs has led time and again to totalitarianism and the suppression of human freedom and individuality. Those who claim to have discovered the truth are most likely to suppress the views of others in their search for certainty. Utopian visions have repeatedly led to repression and control.
The aforementioned authors are just examples of thinkers who tried to challenge the dominant narratives proposed by modernist and structuralist views. This led to the emergence of new perspectives that posed themselves as possible alternatives to Modernism and Structuralism: Postmodernism, Social Constructionism and Poststructuralism.
As a philosophical movement, Postmodernism has questioned the nature of knowledge and has pointed out some of the limitations of positivist epistemology in the study and understanding of human experience. According to Grenz (1996), postmodernism «marks the end of a single, universal worldview. The postmodern ethos resists unified, all-encompassing, and universally valid explanations. It replaces these with a respect for difference and a celebration of the local and particular at the expense of the universal» (p. 12). “Truth” is centred neither in the word of God nor human reason. The truth is de-centred and localised so that many truths are recognized—in different times and different places.
The postmodern condition is one of constant change and reformation. Modernity’s search for an underlying unity is replaced by postmodernity’s dispersal of truth across time and place. There is a waning of any certainty grounded in an unquestioned hierarchy of values (Bauman, 1992, p. 24). There is a refusal to accept that some cultural groups and their ways of thinking have a monopoly on the truth, standards of beauty, and what constitutes the good life. In postmodernism, there is a willingness to live with uncertainty and contingency. There is no univalence, no single theoretical discourse.
In such a framework, language is a central concept, as it constitutes reality. The words we use do not simply reflect or express what we think or feel, but rather language configures our ideas and the meaning of our experiences. Hoyt (1998) points out that we know and understand through our language systems. Language is more than a means to transmit information because it shapes our conscience and structures our reality.
Free of their ties to an alleged bedrock of material reality, words become detached from things, and meaning is increasingly «sustained through mechanisms of self-referentiality» (Poster, 1990, p. 13). Language evolves; meanings slip, slide, and change. As language helps form the self, consciousness, and our understanding of the world, and as language is not a fixed thing, then neither reality nor the self can have any essential, universal properties that can be captured in some system of transcendent truths by which we must live. Different languages produce different values and worlds of meaning and experience. It is within particular discourses that understandings and explanations, subjects and issues, definitions and truths are produced.
Poststructuralism is a movement in philosophy, particularly in French philosophy, arising from linguistic and literary theory. Consistently with Postmodernism, poststructuralist thinkers believe that language is key when seeking to explain the social world: the way we speak about things we see in the world—the discourses we make on these things, the words and expressions we use to describe them—defines our experience of the world itself.
What Poststructuralism adds to the postmodern view of language is the focus on power. The concept of “dominant narrative” or “dominant discourse” we mentioned earlier comes in fact from Poststructuralism: a dominant narrative is the most common or popular way of speaking about something.
So, we could say that the “dominant narrative” about children is that they are innocent because most people speak about children as if they are innocent. Another example of a dominant discourse is the discourse around climate change. The dominant discourse about climate change is that it is man-made. There are, of course, other, alternative discourses about children, climate change, or anything really—because different people have different opinions.
Poststructuralism suggests that what society believes as “truth” at any one point in time is simply the way of thinking (discourse) that has become dominant (Tarragona, 2008). But if truth is shaped by discourse (truth is whatever the dominant discourse says it is), then the people who have the power to influence discourse control what is seen as true and untrue by much of the population. Truth is always linked to the dynamics of power: people who have power and authority within a certain field are also, most likely, the custodian of what is true for that field. Consequently, objective truth does not exist, but there is a plurality of perspectives in the way we look at things.
A central concept in Poststructuralism is “deconstruction”, a method of closely reading a text that allows us to see that no meaning is fixed. Grenz (1996) offers this explanation of deconstruction: «If language really does construct meaning (as opposed to revealing an objective meaning already present in the world), then the work of the scholar is to take apart (“deconstruct”) this meaning constructing process» (p. 43).
Deconstruction is about questioning dominant narratives in a specific context and/or in a specific life experience. Our thoughts, beliefs, and behaviours are developed around dominant narratives telling us how we should properly behave, think, and react in a specific situation—telling us what is good and what is wrong, what is normal and what is abnormal, what is true and what is false. Social dominant narratives shape people’s psychology so that they become personal dominant narratives, influencing a person’s experience in every dimension of their life.
White (2004) preferred to describe NA as poststructuralist because it is heavily focused on the concept of power dynamics and on deconstructing structuralist (i.e., modernist and positivist) ideas about human beings. NA, in fact, states that human problems arise from and are maintained by oppressive stories that dominate the person’s life. Human problems occur when the way in which people’s lives are storied by themselves and others does not significantly fit with their lived experience.
Indeed, significant aspects of their lived experience may contradict the dominant narrative in their lives. Developing solutions to problems within the narrative frame involves opening space for the authoring of alternative stories, the possibility of which has previously been marginalised by the dominant oppressive narrative that maintains the problem. These alternative stories typically are preferred by clients, fit with, and do not contradict significant aspects of lived experience. Also, they open up more possibilities for clients controlling their own lives (Carr, 2001).
Nowadays, narrative practitioners work with a wide range of client groups with difficulties, for example: childhood conduct problems; delinquency; bullying; anorexia nervosa; child abuse; marital conflict; grief reactions; adjustment to AIDS; schizophrenia; and autism (ibid.). Within NA, however, none of these difficulties are viewed as intrinsic or essential attributes of people or relationships. Rather, these labels are seen as being part of a wider mental health pathologising discourse or narrative that maintains rather than resolves problems of living. The power practices entailed by these labels add to rather than lighten the burden on people dealing with such difficulties. Drawing on the work of Foucault (1965; 1975; 1979; 1980; 1984), White refers to the process of applying psychiatric diagnoses to clients and construing people exclusively in terms of these diagnostic labels as “totalising techniques”.
The following table, inspired by Thomas (2002), shows us the differences between a totalising thought and a poststructuralist informed thought in social disciplines.
Structuralism thinks |
Poststructuralism thinks |
Poststructuralismin social work invites us to |
The aim of social work is to search for ‘deep structures’ or ‘essential truths’ about people. |
It is important to draw attention to the real effects of the process of looking for ‘deep structures’ or ‘essential truths’.One of these effects in the social sciences has been the development of various norms and ideas about what people’s lives should look like in order to be healthy. |
Assist people (where relevant) to stop measuring their lives according to what certain social norms say life should be about. |
Such a search for ‘deep structures’ or ‘essential truths’ can be objective. |
What we are looking for, what we believe and where we come from willshape both how we look and what we will find. |
Question professional’s ‘objectivity’, ‘expertise’ and ‘practices of interpretation’. |
It is ‘deep structure’ (e.g., inner self) that shapes life. |
Language and the use of language play a vital role in shaping life.What people say and do and how we relate to each other shapes life.The meanings that we give to the events in our lives, and how we organise these into stories about ourselves and others, shapes life. |
Question taken-for-granted ideas and assumptions that might be sustained through the language we are using in therapy.Consider how stories and rituals andother performative aspects are relevant to understanding the process of professional support and help. |
Our ideas, problems, and qualities, are linked to some internal self. |
Our ideas, problems, and qualities are all products of culture and history. Theyhave been created over time and inparticular contexts. |
Externalise ideas, problems, and qualities in therapy conversations. |
Our identities are fixed and essential—to be found within our inner selves. |
Our identities are constantly created in relationships with others, with institutions, and with broader relations of power. |
Take seriously how every helping conversation will shape the identity (to some extent) of both the person consulting the professionals and the professionals themselves.Think through how we can involve external appreciative witnesses to the helping relationship.Develop accountability practices to check out the real effects of the professional help and support work conversations on those who consult with us. |
Our identities are always consistent. |
Our identities are made up, and continually being made up, of many (sometimes contradictory) stories. |
Consider how the stories of our lives shape our lives and how the helping and supporting practice might enable the rich description of preferred stories of identity. |
What is the aim of asking questions? Why do we ask questions? We usually believe that questions are just a means of collecting information. We ask questions when we want to know something. We can ask questions to gather information about our clients’ personal and relational situation. We can ask them questions about their problems and issues and about their feelings, emotions, and thoughts related to those problems and issues. We can ask them questions to focus on the origin and determinants of problems and aim to help them gain insight about their causes. The intent of asking such “problem-focused questions” is basically to gather information to make correct assessments and define a correct framework of intervention.
However, questions can be something else. Questions can generate experience. Questions can introduce news of differences in a person’s system of thinking. Questions can help people give new meanings to their lives. According to NA, questions are an intervention in themselves. They are considered the most powerful tool to facilitate transformation and change in a person’s experience. More specifically, NA-informed questions are:
-
Generative. They generate experience and help build possible alternatives, possible futures, and possible new ideas. They can help people generate new versions of life.
-
Circular. They can help people to develop a clearer idea of what they are going through and how things, events, people, and relationships are influencing them and are in turn influenced by them.
-
Reflexive. They are thought-provoking questions, often without an existing definitive answer. They can be used to assess the person’s knowledge, experience, or ideas.
-
Respectful. Their intent is to influence the person respectfully, in an enabling and invitational way.
According to White (ibid.) professionals working in helping relationships can adopt one of the following four positions:
A centred position places the professional at the centre of the therapeutic interaction, whereas a decentred professional position places the client(s) at the centre of the interaction. In a centred position, professionals take an expert role by diagnosing, intervening, and treating people based on their predetermined assumptions about what would be the best approach for the client(s). Michael White (ibid.) believes that this approach closes the door to collaboration, and the professional is set up to feel burdened and exhausted while the people who are seeking consultation feel impotent.
Instead, a decentered position may be characterised by a not-knowing, curious, and respectful attitude in which professionals do not assume that they know the meaning of clients’ problems, what is important to them, and how they should live their lives. Rather, persons are invited to categorise and reflect on their experiences and to take their own stance on how they prefer to live their lives. As a result of such inquiry, clients may experience “personal agency and the capacity for responsible action” (White, 2007, p. 2289), and they may feel empowered “to pursue what is precious to them” (p. 59). Therefore, a decentered position of the professional is likely to create opportunities in conversation for more in-depth exploration of clients’ problems in relation to their preferences, which is usually different from what our clients experience in their lives.
An influential position allows professionals to actively stimulate the conditions for change and takes responses for enacting those conditions. An influential professional does not impose his/her own agenda or deliver interventions. He/she works to help people step into and explore some of the neglected territories of their lives and become more acquainted with the knowledge and skills of their lives that are relevant to addressing the concerns, predicaments, and problems that are at hand.
On the other side, a non-influential position allows professionals to take on a more conversational role, which incorporates non-directive responses to client statements. Through dialogue, professionals collaborate with clients in order to involve them in the coevolution of understanding and meaning (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988).
Applying narrative maps of practice means, most likely, to adopt a relational position that can be defined as decentred and influential. Professionals are active participants in the helping conversations and take on the responsibility for creating conditions for preferred outcomes. Narrative questions proposed in the maps of practice help professionals take on such responsibility in a way that can be respectful of clients’ experience and personal narratives and stimulate their creativity in developing new possibilities and solutions to their problems.
We hereby briefly describe the NA maps of practice that inspired the NARRATE framework.
Externalising is the process of separating the person from the problem and establishing the problem as something external to the person (Carey & Russell, 2004). By the time that people seek assistance and support, they have often come to believe that there is something wrong with them, that they or something about them is deeply flawed. The problem has become internalised. This situation is expressed in statements such as “I am worthless”, “I am wrong”, “I am pathological”, etc.
The process of externalising understands problems as not located within individuals but as socially constructed over time (ibid.). When space is created between the person and the problem, this enables the person to begin to revise their relationship with the problem. Rather than existing within or being intrinsic to him or her, the problem is positioned as having an effect on the person.
The externalising map is a way of talking about problems where the intention is to promote externalisation. The types of questions it suggests cover the following topics:
-
Naming the problem (as separate from the person).
-
Mapping the effects of the problem through various domains of the person’s life.
-
Tracing the history of the problem in the person’s life. This enables the problem to be placed into a storyline and makes it clear that the problem is not something that exists within the person. It is instead something that has developed over time, a development that has been influenced by a range of factors.
Re-membering conversations are shaped by the conception that identity is founded upon an “association of life” rather than on a core self. This association of life has a membership composed of the significant figures and identities of a person’s past, present, and projected future, whose voices are influential with regard to the construction of the person’s identity. Re-membering conversations provide an opportunity for people to revise the memberships of their association of life: to upgrade some memberships and to downgrade others; to honour some memberships and to revoke others; to grant authority to some voices in regard to matters of one’s personal identity, and to disqualify other voices with regard to this.
Re-membering conversations are not about passive recollection but about purposeful reengagements with the history of one’s relationships with significant figures and with the identities of one’s present life and projected future. There are many options with regard to the identification of figures and identities that might be re-membered in people’s lives. These figures and identities do not have to be directly known in order to be significant in re-membering conversations. For example, they may be the authors of books that have been important or characters from movies or comics. Nor do these figures and identities have to be people; they could be the stuffed toys of a person’s childhood or a favourite pet.
By “migration of identity” we are referring to cultural and community knowledges and practices of ritual making that can mark and accompany individual and collective movement from one state of being to another in the course of life experience and transitions.
The migration of identity map applies the idea of “rites of passage” (Van Gennep, 1960; Turner, 1969). According to this concept, rites of passage can be considered ritual performances employed to help individuals through times of change, as the life of a person in any society is a series of passages from one age to another and from one occupation to another. Furthermore, among traditional societies, there are essential ceremonies to mark each of these passages. Both Van Gennep (ibid.) and Turner (ibid.) propose a three-part structure for rites of passage:
-
The pre-liminal part consists of a situation that breaks the previous habits of the person. It is an event or a series of events that lead the person outside their habitual conditions.
-
The liminal part is the ritual itself, where the changes happen and the person is between and between two worlds: the previous one and the new one.
-
The postliminal part represents the new condition after the changes and the need to get used to this new world.
The migration of identity map suggests considering the issue the person is facing and is asking support for as a rite of passage and, consequently, analysing it in terms of preliminal (what created the conditions to the emergence of this issue?), liminal (what changes emerge because of this issue?) and postliminal phases (what happened / could happen after these changes?).
NA makes extensive reference to the work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978, 1987), who emphasised that learning was an achievement not of independent effort but of social collaboration. A critical notion for White (2007) was the “Zone of Proximal Development” which Vygotsky defined as «the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers» (p. 86). The Zone of Proximal Development bridges the gap between what is known and what is possible to know, and it is in this gap that learning occurs.
According to Vygotsky, the Zone of Proximal Development is traversed through social collaboration between a child and some other adult or peer with greater—or perhaps just different—knowledge of a concept at hand. Traversing the zone of proximal development can only be achieved if the developmental gap is broken down into manageable tasks. It is these tasks, which are structured at first but allow for the gradual progression from collaborative to independent performance, that scaffold children’s development of concepts. Verbal interactions provide the starting point for concept formation. The learning collaborator or partner assists the child to distance from their immediate experience and thereby to “stretch her or his mind” (White, 2007, p. 272), making new connections that lead to the development of higher-level thinking. This makes it possible for concepts about life and identity to develop, which supplies the foundation for deliberate actions to shape the course of life (White, 2007).
NA applies Vygotsky’s idea to the realm of helping and supporting relationships, proposing a map of practice named “Scaffolding map”. Such a map outlines the professional’s tasks in introducing concepts pertaining to client problems and initiatives and scaffolding the client’s mastery of them. More specifically, in the Scaffolding map, the professional’s role is to support people in distancing themselves from the known and familiar that is being reproduced in their relationships with problems. The professional provides scaffolding by asking incremental questions that support movement from the known and familiar to what is possible to know and do. The professional and client work in partnership to traverse the Zone of Proximal Development.
The professional’s scaffolding allows clients to distance themselves from aspects of problems so that they can develop new conceptions of self, identity, problems, and resources. Distance and increased mastery over concepts invite clients to gradually exercise personal agency over the problems they are struggling with, or with the solutions they may have already begun to find, but that may be lacking a strong foundation for continuance. This is in keeping with the notions of mastery and voluntary control/personal agency that Vygotsky (1987) associated with conceptual thought.
We could define the Scaffolding map as a revision of the Externalising map we described earlier. The scaffolding conversation is organised according to a hierarchy, with increasing levels of generalisations that parallel the steps in the Externalising map. In accordance with this hierarchy, the Scaffolding map begins with naming and characterising the problem or initiative. For Vygotsky, developing words formed the most primitive level of understanding concepts, and in this version of the map, White (2006) refers to this step as “low-level distancing” (p. 45). This marks the early stages of concept formation, as unthematized, unorganised, and unconnected experiences are united under a common name or category.
Medium-level distancing is the next step in the map, and these tasks produce chains of association between the problem or initiative and its consequences, a step previously described as exploring the effects of the problem or initiative. White clearly correlates this second step with Vygotsky’s notions of the development of complexes and chains of association, which establish objective (but not yet abstract) relationships between objects or events. Medium-high-level distancing tasks (that mirror the conversations about evaluating the effects of the problem or initiative in the Externalising map) have the client reflect on these chains of association.
In high-level distancing tasks (justifying and explaining evaluations, according to earlier versions of White’s conversational maps), clients are invited to generalise their learning from specific circumstances into other areas of their lives. White states that it is at this level, where learnings are both generalised from the concrete and abstracted from the totality of experience, that the formation of concepts occurs. Very high-level distancing tasks invite clients to make plans of action based on the newly understood concepts and the positions they have taken. Table 2 describes a possible scheme for the Scaffolding map (White, 2007).
Solution-Focused Inquiry is a practice of using questions and having conversations that strengthen an individual or a group’s capacity to build effective solutions to their issues and problems by surfacing and making visible their present and past capacities; their achievements, assets, and unexplored potentials; their innovations, strengths and high-point moments; their values, traditions, and stories; their expressions of wisdom; and their visions of valued and possible futures.
This particular type of inquiry is inspired by the Solution-Focused Approach (SFA), which shares many epistemological and philosophical elements with NA. SFA originates in therapeutic settings where, through dialogue, a person helps another reach a desired state (De Shazer et al., 2007). Through the years, and thanksto its features, it has been applied in other contexts, like social working.
Priest & Gass (1997) suggest that social workers can adopt two different paradigms. The problem-focused facilitator aims to solve problems by thoroughly investigating their causes and determining what can be done to reduce their influence on a person’s life (e.g., “What keeps the problem going?”; “Who did what when the problem started occurring or became worse?”; “What are the causes of this problem?”).
On the other side, a solution-focused facilitator does not ignore the presenting problems but aims to identify, construct, and implement solutions to the problem. More specifically, a solution-focused facilitation centres around:
-
identifying what clients want (i.e., solutions) rather than what they don’t want (i.e., problems);
-
looking for what is currently working for clients rather than what is not;
-
emphasizing what clients are doing already that is useful, stressing client strengths;
-
assisting clients in doing something different (i.e., solutions) instead of investing in something that is not working for them (i.e., problems).
A solution-focused facilitator often looks for “exceptions” to the problem (e.g., when or where the problem does not occur, investigating why the problem does not happen) and establishes how clients can work differently, rather than harder, to accomplish more.
The difference between problem-focused and solution-focused facilitation is outlined in the following table (Priest & Gass, 1997):
Problem-Focused Approach |
Solution-Focused Approach |
|
|
We could say that the Solution-Focused Approach is an alternative narrative from the dominant discourse about problem solving. Like the maps of practice described so far, Solution-Focused Inquiry helps people distancing themselves from what is known and familiar (that is actually explored through the problem-solving analysis) and entering the world of what is possible to know (the possible solutions to be constructed to solve a particular issue).
According to the founders of Solution Focused Approach (De Shazer, 1994; De Shazer & Berg, 1997) there are different types of solution-focused questions. As time passed by, other authors suggested more and more types of questions to be applied.
-
Open-Ended Questions. Open-Ended Questions are questions that cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” and instead require the respondent to elaborate on their points. They represent useful ways of defining the problems and connecting people and professionals (Barnett, Roach, & Smith, 2006). They foster a positive person-professional relationship from which they can collaboratively work to help the person.
While responding to Open-Ended Questions, people might reveal skills, competencies, and strengths that can be further explored in the following conversations.
Some examples:
-
Can you tell me about the relationship you have with your family?
-
Who are your supporters, and how do they help you?
-
How would you define the problems you are facing?
-
Miracle Question. The Miracle Question gives people permission to think about an unlimited range of possibilities for change and the opportunity to think about a future without their related struggle or challenge. It begins to move the focus away from their current and past problems and toward a more satisfying life. The Miracle Questions is not so much about figuring out what would be a ‘dream come true’ miracle for the person. Instead, it is about discovering, identifying, and replicating the tangible, observable effects of this dream (De Shazer et al., 2007). Thus, it is important for you to follow the lead of the people, be collaborative, and actively seek the nuances of the description of the solution rather than accept grand answers such as ‘‘I would win the lottery”, “I would be happy”, and so on. Since the aim of the Miracle Question is helping develop a workable vision of the future.
The Miracle Question is NOT a single question. It can be rather considered as a sequence of smaller questions aiming to start the process of reflecting and talking about personal goals by developing a strong and workable vision of the future.
Here is an example of the sequence:
-
I am going to ask you a question that is somewhat strange. It requires you to have a good imagination. Do you have a good imagination?
-
Suppose that you go home tonight, go to bed, and fall asleep as usual. While you are sleeping, a miracle happens: the problems that brought you here are gone and you do not know because you are sleeping… What will you notice that is different tomorrow? What will tell you that there has been a miracle?
-
What are the signs throughout the day (after the miracle occurs) that are evidence to you that the miracle occurred?
-
What are the signs throughout the day (after the miracle occurs) that will show your friends or family that the miracle happened?
-
What difference would it make in your life if the miracle did start happening?
-
Exception Questions. Exceptions are those occasions in people’s lives when their problems could have occurred but did not—or at least were less severe. SFA assumes that there are exceptions to all problems, however small and infrequent. In this sense, one task of the professional is to examine those exceptions so that the person can recognise and repeat this. Thus, Exception Questions focus on the conditions that helped the exception to occur:
-
Where did it occur?
-
When did it occur?
-
What helped it to occur?
-
Who helped it to occur?
What about the “Why”? By using Exceptional Questions, SFA assumes that exceptions are a demonstration that hope can exist in people’s lives. In the work with people, Exception Questions can be applied as ways to show them that hope is the prime mover, leading them to create conditions for exceptions to occur. In other words, hope is the explanation of “why” those exceptions occur. Also, hope can be ignited by the professional’s genuine admiration for people’s strength and refusal to give up on themselves.
Some examples:
-
Are there times when the problem does not happen or is less serious? When? How does this happen?
-
Have there been times in the last couple of weeks when the problem did not happen or was less severe?
-
How was it that you were able to make this exception happen?
-
What was different about that day?
-
If your friend (teacher, relative, partner, etc.) were here and I were to ask him/her what he/she noticed you doing differently on that day, what would he/she say?
-
Presuppositional Questions. This type of questions can be defined as a sub-category of Exception Questions. Presuppositional Questions are formatted in a way that assumes there is an answer, and the answer is implied in the question. A Presuppositional Question communicates to people that you believe there is always hope in their lives, however small and frail, so that the questions you ask expect the answers to imply such a dimension of hope.
Some examples:
-
Can you tell me about when this problem was not so bad for you or you handled it in a different way?
-
What have you done in the past that worked?
-
At what times have you felt confident in the past about making a decision?
-
Scaling Questions. Scaling Questions invite people to put their observations, impressions, and predictions on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being no chance and 10 being every chance. Scaling Questions need to be specific, citing specific times and circumstances. Using Scaling Questions helps you in two ways:
-
They ‘put a fence’ around the experience, so it no longer feels limitless and uncontrollable. People can begin to see it as more manageable and therefore more hopeful.
-
By inviting people to think in discrete steps, they render the process of change more realistic and achievable.
An example of Scaling Question can be: On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represents the worst that things could be and 10 represents the best that things could be, where are you today?
Now, it is not enough just to get these numbers. You need to use these numbers to really help people start to think more flexibly and feel hope in the immediate future. Once you started to break down the ‘all or nothing’ perception by using numbers, you can go on asking questions that presuppose (and possibly even precipitate) positive change. For example, if a person answers you that today he is at 2, you might ask the following question: Think carefully now. What prevented you from going down from 2 to 1? Alternatively, you could ask: What would you need to be different, so you are able to pass from 2 to 3?
Some examples:
-
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being that you are totally confident that you can solve this problem you have, where would you put yourself today?
-
What would it take for you to go from a 4 to a 5?
-
What would it take for you to increase your confidence by one point?
-
Have you ever been a 5 in the past? What did you notice that was different on the day that you were a 5?
-
Coping Questions. Coping Questions ask about how people somehow manage to keep going despite the adversity they face. Using Coping Questions helps you communicate to people that you do not want to reassure them or diminish the seriousness of the problems they are facing. Instead, you respect their experience, thoughts, and feelings by acknowledging their point of view. You communicate to them you respectfully “stay behind” them rather than take over and try to impose a solution, and that you are curious about how they keep going despite all that is against them. This helps you create a climate of collaboration in starting the process of helping people see their strengths and resources in trying circumstances.
Some examples:
-
What have you found that is helpful in managing this situation?
-
Considering how depressed and overwhelmed you feel, how is it that you were able to get out of bed this morning and talk to me?
-
You say that you are not sure that you want to continue working on your goals. What is it that has helped you to work on them up to now?
Once you get an answer to a coping question, the next task could be to build on that answer, to expand it. You can pursue their response and ask questions like:
-
What did you do to get up this morning (keep going yesterday, stay alive today, etc.)?
-
What would it take for you to keep doing what you have been doing?
-
Where did you learn to keep going despite this problem? Did you figure it out by yourself? Did anybody teach you?
-
Relationship Questions. Also defined Indirect Questions or Mutual Influence Questions, they invite the person to consider how others might feel or respond to some aspect of his/her life, behaviours or future changes. Relationship Questions may help people to reflect on perceptions, thoughts or behaviours they have that seem narrow or faulty. At the same time, Relationship Questions help you talk with the people about those perceptions, thoughts, or behaviours without directly challenging them. On the other side, Relationship Questions may help people reflect upon the positive effects of their skills or resolutive actions on the life of people who are significant for them. This can be really helpful to strengthen those actions and skills, as they gain social confirmation of their efficacy.
Some examples:
-
How is it that someone might think that you are neglecting or mistreating your parents?
-
If your friends were here, what might they say about how they feel when you manifest your rage in this way?’
-
What would your boyfriend say if he knew that you have been resisting your problem up to now? If you decided to maintain a more polite attitude towards your parents, how would this decision positively influence their life?
Significant contributions on the application of NA to the topics of autism spectrum and neurodivergence come from the work of Leurs Massart & De Mol (2017), Monteiro (2021) and Olinger (2021a, 2021b, 2021c). We hereby briefly describe the work of all these authors, as they heavily influenced the development of the NARRATE learning program. All these authors suggest the need for changing the narrative about autism and neurodivergence while agreeing on the idea of describing the Person on Autism Spectrum (PoAS) as an agent.
Leurs Massart & De Mol (2007) focus on the concept of “embodiment”, according to which the human mind is largely determined by the structures of the human body (morphology, sensory, and motor systems) and its interactions with the physical environment (Lerner et al., 2018). In other words, the human mind is largely influenced by our bodies and how they interact with the physical world around us.
According to this paradigm, the body is the tool we use to know the world and make sense of it (Wilson & Foglia, 2011). Beyond their biological structures, bodies become an interrelated organic, cognitive, and social self (Di Paolo, 2005). As a social species, humans cannot be separated from their social condition. Sense-making is an interactive process based on bidirectional influences between interacting agents (De Jaegher, 2013; De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2007). Social encounters require coordination between agents for the interaction to have autonomy and therefore to influence agents back (Di Paolo, 2005, 2009; Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). The organisation of an agent’s activities is a product of the interaction of a myriad of constraints: biological, physical, social, and cultural. But the engagement is meaningful for the agent at least partly because of the basic reality of its embodiment—its biological organisation, the continual growth and development that must be maintained if the agent is to continue to exist (Di Paolo et al., 2010; Thompson 2007).
In such a framework, the agent does not simply act but enacts. The term “enaction” defines perceptually guided action that constantly involves purpose, volition, guidance, and support. It is the process that allows the emergence of cognitive phenomena from the interaction with other agents and the world: mind and world arise together as the body engages in action and inter-action (Varela et al., 1993).
Leurs Massart & De Mol (2007) suggest that PoAS enact differently from the so-called neurotypical agents in terms of language, body movement, and meaning-making.
Defining PoAS as agentive beings is a significant paradigm shift. It acknowledges that PoAS actively participate in the social construction of reality; consequently, PoAS’ actions have meanings, purposes, and aims. However, these meanings are not recognised and considered by a socio-cultural environment where the dominant narrative about autism is disembodied and focused on disabled research paradigms (Smith, 2016). Disembodied because theoretical models explaining peculiarities overfocus on cognition and disregard the body. Disabled because intervention programs aim at repairing, developing, or improving impaired functions instead of recognising strengths, potential, and legitimacy. Consequently, interventions remain essentially corrective and disembodied.
Such dominant narrative denies PoAS’ agentic status. Given that agency is rooted in the interpersonal domain, not recognising alternative ways of enacting reality puts at stake the recognition of agency and therefore the sense of agency. This represents an implicit practice of power that has operated on PoAS’ lives since their childhood (Leurs Massart & De Mol, 2007). Consequently, PoAS may develop a thick narrative—that is, a dense, rich, elaborated personal dominant narrative—of themselves as sick, broken, abnormal persons that need to be fixed and normalised, as their actions are meaningless and not based on the reality principle.
Leurs Massart & De Mol (ibid.) suggest that the enaction and embodiment paradigm may be useful concepts to help PoAS recognise the meaning and purposes of their actions in the physical and social world, even though their use of language is different from the neurotypicals’. As agents, humans are not beings of language but rather, beings of meaning: «Regarding autism, research on interventions should focus on generating experiences of engagement in order for an autistic agency to become conspicuous. As spaces for alternative bodily ways are encouraged, autism may be seen as an alternative way of becoming instead of an impossibility of becoming» (ibid., p. 54).
Monteiro (2021) highlights the need for shifting away from the medical model process of identifying and labelling autism as a constellation of symptoms and the subsequent abstraction and reduction of the individual to a diagnostic category and label. The standard practice of diagnosing autism through the identification of deficits leaves PoAS and the family with a narrative that is negative, confusing, and marginalising, leading to increased stress and a great difficulty in understanding the individual’s worldview. This approach to the diagnostic process and conversation has remained largely in place even as the understanding of the autism spectrum has advanced over the past 40 years.
Monteiro suggests that autism should be analysed in terms of describing patterns of behaviour instead of diagnostic labels. This shift to the use of descriptive language opens a context for the PoAS and their entourage to understand and engage with a worldview driven by a distinctive way of organising, regulating, thinking, and behaving in relation to others. For this aim, the author introduces two concepts: “brain style” and “patterns of strengths and differences.
The concept of “brain style” centres the observations in a narrative that is inclusive rather than marginalising, as every person has a distinctive pattern of brain style strengths and differences, not just the person with autism. According to Monteiro, the simple narrative shift of recognising and describing the individual’s pattern of brain style-related strengths and differences provides a powerful way to support that individual’s perspective. The language of brain style differences empowers the PoAS and their entourage, freeing them to explore and understand each other and their distinctive brain styles. This leads to opportunities to support and build connections and attachments in profoundly meaningful and individualised ways.
Equally important is shifting the narrative from talking about “patterns of strengths and weaknesses” (or “strengths and deficits”) to talking about “patterns of strengths and differences”. When professionals use the framework of identifying strengths and weaknesses, the listener typically experiences a stress response. It becomes challenging to absorb the stated strengths as the listener is bracing emotionally to absorb the upcoming onslaught of processing their weaknesses or deficits. The shift that occurs when the clinician makes observations about strengths and then introduces observations about differences is a powerful one. According to Monteiro, combining the narrative of patterns of strengths and differences with the narrative of brain style allows people to become curious about and engage with one another’s styles and patterns in a way that allows for unexpected outcomes.
Figure 2 represents Monteiro’s scheme of autism spectrum brain style differences:
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020).
This scheme might help in structuring a helping relationship with PoAS or to support their entourage in being in relationship with them, as it provides a map for professionals and carers about some useful elements to pay attention to when communicating with PoAS. Also. It may help PoAS themselves to focus on the specifics of their brain style in relation to these dimensions.
Courtney Olinger’s work (Olinger, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c) focuses on the idea of describing autism using a language that is as much as possible representative of the single PoAS experience. This approach does not necessarily reject the traditional diagnostic description PoAS might have received. Instead, it aims to expand the diagnosis with a more experience-near narrative. Olinger highlights that if we think in terms of utility, the dominant practice of diagnosing autism can be helpful to PoAS, as individuals might express relief in knowing that there is a name for what they have been experiencing. In the author’s experience, some speak about feeling less alone in their struggles and go on to find communities of support. Moreover, in some contexts, diagnosis is required, so PoAS cannot avoid receiving it.
In this sense, Olinger (2021c) suggests professionals support experience-near descriptions in which the diagnostic term is situated by context and experience. This is a way to enrich the diagnostic narrative about autism by supporting PoAS to develop preferred narratives about themselves, the diagnosis, and their relationship with the rest of the world.
Ollinger’s map of practice to help PoAS develop an experience-near description of autism focuses on asking questions about four dimensions: sensory perception, social relationships, skills, and challenges. Sensorial perception is explored by asking questions about the sensitivity, the acuity, and the pleasing of the five senses, plus the sense of proprioception (body awareness), interoception (recognition of internal cues), and the body movement. The person’s social profile is explored by asking questions about how they describe their communities and the social group they are part of. Skills are defined by Ollinger as “something the person is good at” (ibid., p. 54), while challenges are defined as “something the person cannot do or does not like” (ibid.). Both dimensions are explored by asking questions about general skills and challenges, as well as contextual skills and challenges.
According to Ollinger, explorations of sensory profiles, social profiles, and skills and challenges are ways to elicit the knowledge and skills that clients hold about what is helpful for them. The information yielded from these explorations serves as the basis for promoting the PoAS’ agency and action. Self-advocacy is the act of representing one’s self, one’s view, and one’s interests (Leabitter et al., 2021). This requires some awareness, the ability to know what is needed or wanted, and the ability to communicate this in some way. Expressions of self-advocacy might be: saying no, asking for help, expressing confusion or lack of understanding, expressing interests, expressing preferences, and expressing dislikes, discomfort, or distress.
Ollinger suggests self-advocacy is deeply related to processes of self-regulation and co-regulation (ibid.); that is how PoAS understand to advocate in ways that get the responses they are hoping for and avoid making a problem worse, while understanding something about navigating the system in which these needs can be met. Consequently, Ollinger’s map of practice includes questions about the way PoAS reflect on how and when to express their needs and desires within a specific social context.
Significant contributions on the application of NA to the topics of autism spectrum and neurodivergence come from the work of Leurs Massart & De Mol (2017), Monteiro (2021) and Olinger (2021a, 2021b, 2021c). We hereby briefly describe the work of all these authors, as they heavily influenced the development of the NARRATE learning program. All these authors suggest the need for changing the narrative about autism and neurodivergence while agreeing on the idea of describing the Person on Autism Spectrum (PoAS) as an agent.
NARRATE has as its main priority the inclusion of People on the Autism Spectrum (PoAS) as the project’s final beneficiaries in the world of work. Our proposal pursues such a priority by providing VET professionals with knowledge and skills to support PoAS in their transition into the world of work and to support companies in employing PoAS. This is done on the basis of the idea, inspired by NA, that PoAS are people with an alternative way of being, with different rhythm, tempo, and ways of decoding (interpreting) the world, instead of people with a mental disorder (Vakirtzi, 2010; Monteiro, 2016). This way of considering PoAS facilitates inclusion in the world of work and provides benefits for both the final beneficiaries and the companies.
For this reason, NARRATE focuses on training VET professionals with the skills to help PoAS take an active role in their transition into the world of work by deconstructing the dominant narrative that they are “people with impairment” and focusing on their strengths and abilities to find and maintain employment. On the other hand, NARRATE also focuses on training VET professionals in developing skills to effectively engage companies in employing and effectively interacting with PoAS, to see them as useful assets for their businesses.
The project idea was born out of a growing need for employment services for PoAS perceived by (VET) professionals working with this group of people. Even though there is ample evidence to support the potential benefits to companies when they hire PoAS, who often demonstrate trustworthiness, reliability, attention to detail, and intense focus that result in increased work output (Hendricks, 2009), the interface with the world of work is still not well covered: unemployment and its consequences (e.g., insufficient incomes, low self-respect, young adults’ low independence from parents, and, at worst, social alienation and falling into poverty) are hampering the life of adult PoAS (Autism Europe, 2019).
Unfortunately, the VET field, even though it actually aims to equip people with knowledge and skills required in the labour market, often lacks means to better support both PoAS dealing with the world of work and companies in employing and integrating PoAS in their environments. One of the reasons might be the dominant narrative about autism, considering it a neurobiological developmental disorder. Such a framework is negative by design, as it emphasises deficits and severity levels and takes little account of the single PoAS’ strengths, competencies, & skills. Due to this framework:
-
PoAS tend to see themselves as people with a deficit and are not used to paying attention to their strengths, competencies, & skills. This has also had a negative impact on the way they approach work.
-
Professionals try to help PoAS deal with the “impairment” they are supposed to have because of their condition.
-
Companies tend to experience the employment of PoAS as a difficult process, fearing they should heavily modify their work environment to integrate one or more employees who are supposed to have a mental disorder that could create problems with co-workers and in terms of work efficiency.
NARRATE intends to reframe this dominant narrative about autism to provide professionals with a theoretical and practical approach to help them support both PoAS in entering the labour market and engage and support the companies (willing to) employ PoAS. We will develop a training program addressing both sides based on the Narrative Approaches (Vakirtzi, 2010; Monteiro, 2016). Such approaches suggest autism can be understood as an alternative way of being, with different rhythm, tempo, and ways of decoding (interpreting) the world. PoAS can then be seen as people presenting areas of strength and areas of gaps at the social, communicative, and sensory level, instead of people with a mental disorder.
Applying this narrative opens to new possibilities in supporting PoAS interacting with the world of work and companies dealing with PoAS, as it highlights that PoAS’ have strengths and skills that can be nurtured for the world of work and that can be added values for companies’ environments.
NARRATE´s main objective is to provide a full-fledged training pathway addressing two fundamental aspects of the daily work of the VET professionals working with PoAS.
-
Supporting PoAS in their transition to the labour market, which means preparing PoAS access work environments and maintain employment.
-
Prepare, engaging companies to employ PoAS.
More concretely, it offers a 2-tier training program: the In-House Training & the In-Company NARRATE Training. The first one provides knowledge & skills to support PoAS in the transition to the labour market, the second provides knowledge & skills to engage and support companies in hiring and employing PoAS. Both NARRATE Training programs are structured around 3 pillars:
-
a Training Syllabus, describing the theoretical framework and containing the learning modules
-
a Resource Kit, providing ideas, exercises and activities that help put in action the learning content
-
a Personal Action Plan, providing VET professionals with ideas, guidelines, and suggestions on how to apply the Training Syllabus and the Resource Kit in their specific work contexts.
The PoAS NARRATE Training targets VET professionals working with PoAS entering the world of work; the In-company Training targets VET professionals engaging & supporting companies in employing PoAS. Accordingly, the 2 tiers can be used by different professionals or by the same (for instance, in smaller organisations, often the same person is covering both fields). Both tiers of the NARRATE Training program are fully aligned and coordinated. However, due to their differences, they present and include different approaches and practices.
The W.O.R.K. framework has been developed considering two phases:
-
Desk research about NA and its application to the autism spectrum, especially in the context of helping PoAS find and maintain a job.
-
Interviews with experts in the field of autism spectrum and with PoAS looking for a job and/or already having a job.
The interviews have been an important source of information, especially for developing a vocabulary in describing the framework and the 2-tier trainings that could be as experience-near for professionals as possible, consistent with the ideas of NA.
In fact, the desk research showed us that the application of NA in the field of autism spectrum, especially in the context of helping PoAS get and/or maintain a job or an occupation, is quite an innovative topic. For this reason, as we know that many professionals would not be so accustomed to NA, we decided to put aside a technical, NA-related language and use a language more aligned with the professionals’ everyday experience.
However, we had to use some technical, NA-related terms, which have been described in the Glossary in Appendix.
The framework we developed is consistent with the general NA ideas previously presented, with the conceptualisation about autism spectrum and PoAS’ life experience previously described, and with the needs and suggestions that emerged from the interviews in the first phase of the project.
Consequently, we believe the W.O.R.K. framework supports the following ideas:
-
PoAS are representative of a community of individuals who experience life differently from the so-called “neurotypical” people. PoAS’ life experience does not necessarily mean a pathological life experience.
-
PoAS life experience deserves to be explored with curiosity and respect. Professionals applying the NARRATE ideas assume that PoAS are the experts of their own lives.
-
Professionals are invited to deconstruct their role of power as experts. Since PoAS are experts of their own lives, professional helping and support relationships are contexts where professionals may teach PoAS some ideas on how to find and/or maintain a job, but, at the same time, PoAS can teach professionals what their life experiences are like. As both professionals and PoAS are experts in their own topics, professionals do not always cover a position of power towards PoAS. Sometimes, it is the opposite.
-
Professional helping relationships are collaborative processes where all the actors teach each other and learn from each other, the professionals included.
-
W.O.R.K. is not a context of objective truth. It proposes a narrative that can be applied by professionals, not as a protocol to be slavishly followed but as a set of ideas that can enrich professional’s work with PoAS. Professionals are invited to always consider how and when the application of the W.O.R.K. framework could be helpful in relation to their specific work environments.
-
Professional helping relationships focus on what works and what is already working, and not only on what the problem is. In other words, W.O.R.K. promotes a solution-focused approach to help PoAS find and maintain a job.
-
W.O.R.K. invites professionals to focus on PoAS’ personal agency by helping them to be more aware of the influence they can have on the world. In other words, W.O.R.K. supports the NA idea of ownership and authorship—the idea that a person can be the author of his/her own life story.
Such ideas are addressed by the W.O.R.K. framework, considering four important constructs. The name W.O.R.K. is actually an acronym of these constructs:
-
-
W = We. The construct WE invites professionals to support clients in the process of exploring the dominant narratives of their lives and of their working contexts in terms of beliefs, values, and discourses about personal and company identity. It also invites professionals to self-reflect about their personal dominant narratives about PoAS, autism spectrum, and their interconnections with the world of work and consider how such narratives impact their work with PoAS and companies. The construct WE invites professionals to consider themselves, PoAS and companies as members of a socio-cultural environment influencing their lives and thoughts through some dominant narratives that need to be unpacked and explored.
-
O = Ownership. The construct OWNERSHIP invites professionals to focus on the aspects of personal and group agency in order to favour empowerment and promote solution talk and reflections so that PoAS and companies can improve their sense of authorship and the idea that they can positively impact the world with their actions and values.
-
-
R = Relationships. The construct RELATIONSHIP invites professionals to focus on the power dynamics within the professional relationship they construct with PoAS and companies to manage them with the aim of helping their clients. Also, it focuses on the idea of helping PoAS enhance their awareness of having an active role in society and companies enhance processes of inclusion and integration of PoAS in their working environments.
-
K = Knowledge. The construct KNOWLEDGE invites professionals analysing with PoAS (Tier 1 and Tier 2) and companies (Tier 2) the competences, skills, and abilities that could help PoAS finding and maintaining a job, and companies enhancing the processes of integration and inclusion. It invites professionals to promote solution talk and conversations about what works well and what is already working and deconstruct the dominant narrative of problem-solving practice as the only way to solve problems.
One or more Teaching Units have been developed for each construct, helping professionals practically train and grow experience around these ideas. Each Unit helps students deepen one or more aspects of the four W.O.R.K. constructs and decline them in the context of helping PoAS find a job (In-House Training) and maintain a job (In-Company Training), and companies enhance their inclusion and integration processes for PoAS (In-Company Training).
Andersen T. (1992). Relationship, language and pre-understanding in the reflecting processes. Australian & New Zealand Journey of Family Therapy, 13(2): 87-91.
Anderson H. & Goolishian H. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27: 371-393.
Anderson H. (1997). Conversation, Language, and Possibilities: A Postmodern Approach to Therapy. New York: Basic Books.
Anderson H. (2006). Collaborative Therapy: Relationships and Conversations That Make a Difference. London: Routledge.
Barnett S, Roach S & Smith M. (2006). Microskills: Advisor behaviors that improve communication with advisees. NACADA Journal, 26: 6–12.
Bateson G. (1987). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
Bauman Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmondernity. London: Routledge.
Brown C. (2003). ‘Narrative therapy: Reifying or challenging dominant discourse’. In W. Shera (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Practice (pp. 223–245). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Carey M. & Russell S. (2004). Narrative Therapy: Responding to Your Questions. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.
Carr A. (1998). Michael White’s narrative therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 20(4): 485-503.
De Shazer S. & Berg I.K. (1997). «What works?». Remarks on research aspects of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 19: 121-124.
De Shazer S. (1994). Words Were Originally Magic. New York: W.W. Norton.
De Shazer S., Dolan Y., Korman H., Trepper T., McCollum E. and Berg, I.K. (2007) More Than Miracles: The State of the Art of Soution-Focused Brief Therapy. New York: Hawort.
Derrida J. (1967). De la Grammatologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Di Paolo E.A. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology & Cognitive Sciences, 4: 97–125.
Di Paolo E.A. (2009). Extended life. Topoi, 28: 9–21.
Di Paolo E.A., Rohde M., & De Jaegher H. (2010). ‘Horizons for the Enactive Mind: Values, Social Interaction, and Play’. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E.A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science (pp. 33-88). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foucault M. (1966). Les Mots et les Choses. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault M. (1977/1994). ‘Truth and power’. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power (pp. 111-133) (Eng Trans.). New York: The New Press.
Foucault M. (1977/1997). Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Eng Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault M. (1982/1994). ‘The subject and power’. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power (pp. 326-348) (Eng Trans.). New York: The New Press.
Freedman J. & Combs G. (1996). Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities. New York: W. W. Norton.
Gergen K.J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3): 266–275.
Gergen K.J. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books.
Grenz S. (1996). A Primer on Postmondernism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans & Co.
Hoffman L. (1990). Constructing realities: An art of lenses. Family Process, 29(1): 1-12.
Hoffman L. (2002). Family Therapy: An Intimate History. New York: W. W. Norton.
Hoyt M. (1998). The Handbook of Constructive Therapies. Innovative Approaches from Leading Practitioners. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Ilic D. (2017). Conversation Analysis of Michael White’s Decentered and Influential Position. Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences – Department of Family Therapy.
Kuczynski L. & De Mol J. (2015). ‘Dialectical models of socialization’. In W.F. Overton & P.C.M. Molenaar (Eds.). Theory and Method. Volume 1 of the Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kuczynski L., & De Mol J. (2015). ’Dialectical Models of Socialization’. In W.F. Overton & P.C.M. Molenaar (Eds.). Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, Vol. 1: Theory and Method (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Leadbitter K., Buckle K.L., Ellis C., & Dekker M. (2021) Autistic Self-Advocacy and the Neurodiversity Movement: Implications for Autism Early Intervention Research and Practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 635690.
Lerner M.D., Mazefsky C.A., White S.W., & McPartland J.C. (2018). ‘Autism spectrum disorder’. In J. N. Butcher & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Child and adolescent psychopathology (pp. 447–471). Washington, DC: APA.
Leurs Massart A., & De Mol Jan. Narrative Means, Enaction and Autism: Alternative ways of being. International Journal of Collaborative Practices: Relationships and conversations that make a difference, 8(1): 48-56.
Limon Arce G. (2012). La Terapia como Dialogo Hermeneutico y Construccionista: Practicas de Libertad y Deco-Construccion en los Juegos Relacionales, del Lenguaje y de Significado. Ohio: TAOS Institute Publications.
Madigan S. & Law I. (Eds.). (1998). Praxis: Situating Discourse, Feminism & Politics in Narrative Therapy. Vancouver: Yaletown Family Therapy.
Monteiro M.J. (2016). Family Therapy and the Autism Spectrum: Autism Conversations in Narrative Practice. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.
Monteiro M.J. (2021). Narrative therapy and the autism spectrum: A model for clinicians. Human Systems, 1(2-3): 150-164.
Morgan A. (2000). What is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.
Olinger C. (2021a). Narrative practices and autism, Part 1: Theory and engagement: Shedding ableism from therapy. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 2: 32-41.
Olinger C. (2021b). Narrative practices and autism, Part 2: Expanding on understandings of autism. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 2: 42-49.
Olinger C. (2021c). Narrative practices and autism, Part 3: Scaffolding practice toward identity, advocacy and communities of support. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 2: 50-59.
Pérez Cota F. (2015). Monologo, en el laberinto epistemológico de la psicología. México City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Poster M. (1990). The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Priest S. & Gass M. (1997). An examination of “problem-solving” versus “solution-focused” facilitation styles in a corporate setting. Journal of Experiential Education, 20(1): 34-39.
Sanders C.J. (2011). An exploration of knowledge and power in narrative, collaborative-based, postmodern therapies: A commentary. The Professional Counselor, 1(3): 201-207.
Shawver L. (2005). Nostalgic Postmodernism. Postmodern Therapy Vol. 1. Oakland, CA: Paralogic Press.
Smith C. (2016). Writing and Developing Social Stories (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Tarragona M. (2008). ‘Postmodern/Poststructuralist Therapy’. In J. Lebow (Ed.), 21st Century Psychotherapies (pp. 167-205). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas L. (2002). Poststructuralism and therapy—What’s it all about?. International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 2: 85-89.
Thompson E. (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Truett Anderson W. (1992). Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern World. New York: Harper Collins.
Turner V. (1969). The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure. Brunswick and London: Aldine Transaction.
Vakirtzi E. (2010). The archaeology of autism and the emergence of the autistic subject. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Exter, UK].
Van Gennep A. (1960). The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge.
Vygotsky L.S. (1975). Lo Sviluppo Psicologico del Bambino. Roma: Editori Riuniti.
Vygotsky L.S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. (R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton, Eds.). New York: Plenum Press.
White M. & Epston D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York: W. W. Norton.
White M. (1989). Family therapy training and supervision in a world of experience and narrative. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Summer.
White M. (1990). Consultation interviews and accountability. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, No. 4.
White M. (1993). ‘Histories of the Present’. In S. Gilligan (Ed.), Therapeutic Conversations. New York: W.W. Norton.
White M. (2004). Narrative Practice and Exotic Lives: Resurrecting Diversity in Everyday Life. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.
White M. (2007). Maps of Narrative Practice. New York: W.W. Norton.
NARRATIVE
Polish American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that “the map is not the territory.” That is, we cannot have direct experience of objective reality (given that something like “objective reality” exists), but we have representations of it.
The map of reality is not reality. Even the best maps are imperfect. They are reductions of what they represent.
A map can also be a snapshot of a point in time, representing something that no longer exists.
Every map we build about reality changes over time. So, they become narratives of reality. “Narrative” is the metaphor we at NARRATE use to describe the idea that maps of reality change as time passes by.
If we consider the relationship between PoAS and the world of work:
-
A person with a diagnosis on the autism spectrum has his or her own narratives about things, relationships, and the world of work.
-
A professional working with PoAS has his or her own narratives about things, relations, the world of work, and how PoAS live and experience the world.
-
People working within a company environment have their own narratives about things, relations, the world of work, and how PoAS live and experience the world.
REALITY
If we say that people live their lives through the narratives they develop about the world, what is reality?
If we just experience the world through our narratives, can we actually and surely say that an objective reality exists?
What is “reality”, then?
We at NARRATE define “reality” as a social and cultural process where all people involved in a specific context agree on what is real and what is not. In other words, a shared narrative within a particular context is what we refer to as “reality.” Reality is a co-construction of meanings.
This means that “normal” and “abnormal”, “sane” and “pathological,” “true” and “false” are narratives in themselves, shared by the members of a community. Changes in the community’s culture cause changes in the definition of what normality, sanity, and truth are.
Considering this, when we at NARRATE propose that you practice a reality check with your clients, we invite you to explore with them the dominant narratives in their personal life and in their social context and how they impact their experience and approach to searching for a job, maintaining a job, or being in a relationship with a person with a diagnosis on the autism spectrum.
NARRATIVE LANDSCAPE
The narrative landscape is the representation of events set in time and space as we narrate them. Narrative Approaches define two types of landscapes:
-
Landscape of action: It is the “material of the story”: events, circumstances, sequence, and time. It addresses the where, what, and when of a story and has a plot in addition to an underlying subject.
-
Landscape of identity: It is about people’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, as well as their disbeliefs. It is the domain of individual sense-making, through which people can witness events, reflect on them, and give voice to understandings about life and identity.