Narrative Therapy Critical Analysis Essay Example

standard psychiatric diagnostic interviews and clinical language serve to compromise a patient’s integrity and undermine their recovery. Jensen then emphasizes how and why narrative therapy is the solution. Although the body of this article comprises of anecdotal material imparting the author’s views and experiences, each point is explained, justified, and supported through logic. The conclusion expresses that with a change a difference can be made and prompts the reader into action with suggested readings and self study.

Style

Jensen has written this persuasive article politely but rather informally, interspersing slight chattiness creating a friendly conversational tone. The language is clear and easy to understand considering his audience and assumptions pertaining to a deep knowledge of consultant psychology are inherent. Jensen employs acronyms (NT – narrative therapy) throughout this article and the use of some psychiatric terms and diagnoses. Jensen’s poetic use of an analogy not only created vivid insight and understanding of a complex issue but exercised the reader through narrative therapy’s style first hand.

Metaphors and similes were then related back to the initial analogy. Further more, Jensen presented a clear use of examples, both for the problems and solution. Recommendations pertaining to differing specialties engaged a wide scope of the psychiatric field. However, atypical to the field of psychiatry, which tends to be more formal and factual, the author draws on his own experiences rather than reliable sources of data and in doing so employs occasional cautious language. Further more, Jensen unintentionally left out a closing bracket on page 710, which questions his editing ability.

Argument

On the surface, this article urges the disillusioned psychiatrists “to re-connect with some of [their] reasons for becoming a doctor…[by taking] a

closer look at NT.” (Jensen 2011, p. 711). On a deeper level this article voices disapproval and casts shadow over current psychiatric practice stating it’s “dehumanizing onslaught of tick-boxes and risk-management practices” (Jensen 2011, p. 711) is detrimental to patients self concept and undermines the outcome in which it seeks. Ideally narrative therapy’s use of language and affiliated analogies that relate and are patient specific may correct the failings of the standard diagnostic interview and “offer a different opportunity for engaging with the patient and an improved foundation for patient-psychiatrist collaboration.” (Jensen 2011, p. 709).

Evidence

Early within the article Jensen declares expectations of resistance to the benefits of narrative therapy as “there is virtually no scientific evidence base to back such claims.” Jensen (2011, p. 710). With this considered, Jensen was forced to utilize articles that promoted the concept of narrative therapy rather than empirical studies. An instance where Jensen paraphrases ideas to justify his position is seen with his analysis of Simon Hatcher’s (2010) ‘Risk Management in Mental Health: Applying Lessons from Commercial Aviation.’. Jensen draws on this article to substantiate claims that the current practice of risk assessment and management in mental health is ineffective and implies that psychiatrists and interns need to fully excavate all aspects required to formulate adequate treatment with little regard to adversity.

Jensen also implies that the Commercial Aviation safety practices can be likened to narrative therapy in that it uses specific language and documents good outcomes. A further reference Jensen mentions is Alice Morgan’s (2000) book, “What is Narrative Therapy?” as it covers a broad spectrum of narrative therapy. Morgan (2000) offers a wide range of practical examples for

the therapist to replicate in practice and create a respectful, non-accusing and supportive environment for both patient and clinician. These results tie-in White’s intentions to further promote and use narrative therapy in psychiatry.

Evaluation

Despite the majority of Jensen’s claims are based on experience and reflection his arguments are logical and compelling. Additionally the deliverance style in which Jensen presented his ideas makes not only for an interesting read but is vivid and thought provoking. The cleaver use of the ‘road works analogy’ enables you to relate and see things from a different perspective and further strengthens his argument for the effectiveness of narrative therapy. One main criticism of this this editorial is the lack of evidence-based referencing. Although Jensen uses well written articles by both White and Morgan that integrate evidence from varying fields and relate it to back narrative therapy this article lacks this correlational evidence.

Failure to specifically reference key arguments reads as Jensen’s personal opinion rather than an empirical study. Despite the dearth of narrative therapy’s scientific evidence Jensen could have further strengthened his stand by citing other well researched psychotherapies that hold similar values. The conversational model is one example that parallels narrative therapy in a multitude of ways and is at present the most researched of the psychotherapies. Narrative therapy aside, one cannot dismiss that perhaps the main importance of this article is that it raises fundamental concerns about the interaction between patient and psychiatrists and points out potential flaws with the current system and as such should warrant further investigation.

Conclusion

Although through reflective encounters, Jensen clearly and logically outlines the advantages of narrative therapy for the field of psychiatry. He also bravely

highlights major flaws with traditional psychiatric techniques that have been privy to denial. One should not dismiss narrative therapy on the basis of inadequate quantitative evidence as further research could see this psychotherapy enhance the lives and perhaps even save both patient and therapist.