An interesting item on the difference and advantages of two different approaches.
As someone with a foot in both camps (playwork, SF) I’m interested in discovering what within playwork can be seen as SF-like. In particular, I’m interested in things that a playwork approach affords you, that more specific approaches like behaviour management, don’t.
”I went on in service training on a couple of years ago, though not with the originators (!). It struck me that if an alcohol worker was working with say a man with issues around drinking, and the worker used , then sooner or later the man would be talking about alcohol, and generating reasons to manage the drinking. If the worker used SF they would elicit his goals for an involvement, e.g. staying with his partner, keeping his flat, whatever, and the worker would work entirely with that goal. In the SF approach the man might still end up managing alcohol better, but it would be in order to serve the goal for change he had brought to the work. Given this difference I would assume that SF would be more effective because it used the motivation related to a goal for change that mattered to the man, compared to where the goal was the worker’s goal. I couldn’t see any advantages [this] would have over SFBT, though when I saw interviewing I was impressed by his engagement skills.“
John Wheeler to SOLUTION-FOCUS list
show details 10 Oct (2 days ago)