Researching what we practice-The paradigm of systemic family research: Part 2.

This is the second of two articles focusing on ideological and philosophical preferences for relating to and conducting research in the field of systemic couple and family therapy (CFT). To emphasize the need for the field of systemic CFT to be based on the best available knowledge, in the first article, we argue the benefits of applying the principles of evidence-based practice, and in the current article, we present the rationale behind the contents of a program for systemic family therapy research that safeguards methodological multiplicity. The need for multi-methodological systemic research is also recognized on the basis of the authors' self-reflexive accounts of overcoming barriers to learning skills and deepening their understanding of quantitative methods.

Researching what we practice-The paradigm of systemic family research: Part 1.

This is part 1 of two articles that focus on the ideological and philosophical preference regarding how to relate to and conduct research in the field of systemic couple and family therapy. Thus, this article outlines the theoretical groundwork for part 2 of "Researching what we practice" in the same journal. Research in certain areas of systemic couple and family therapy (CFT), such as that influenced by social constructionism and postmodernism, has a different epistemological tradition than in the natural sciences.

"The troublesome other and I": Parallel stories of separated parents in prolonged conflicts.

This qualitative study aims to explore how noncohabiting parenting couples in prolonged conflict construct the other parent and themselves. Ten parents from five parent couples were interviewed. A dyadic analytical design was used, where parent's stories of conflict were analyzed in parallel with their co-parent.