FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3080459612> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3080459612 endingPage "831" @default.
• W3080459612 startingPage "825" @default.
• W3080459612 abstract "This is my second essay focused on the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike the first one (Lebow, 2020a), which appeared in our June issue, this one serves as an introduction to an extraordinary special section focused on families, couple and family therapy, and the pandemic. I am writing in mid-July 2020 during the remarkable time of COVID-19, a time in which there is a pandemic with no vaccine or cure. In the United States, it also is a time of mixed signals about how to live with the pandemic. Here, somehow, not wearing a mask to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, a widely accepted public health practice, has become a symbol of rebelling against progressive government authority while expressing loyalty to a political leader. It also is a time in which profound racial inequality has been brought into societal focus by the murders of several African American young people by police (Anderson, McKenny, & Stevenson, 2019; McDowell, Knudson-Martin, & Bermudez, 2019; Watson, 2019; Watson, Bacigalupe, Daneshpour, Han, & Parra-Cardona, 2020). And, probably not entirely a coincidence, it is a time marked by the United States’ strongest flirtation with xenophobia and intolerance in memory in the form of the tragicomic but also frightening government of Donald Trump. These are strange times indeed. One thing is certain: COVID-19 has had a pervasive effect on families and the individuals in those families as well as on the practice of couple and family therapy. Given the many shifts COVID-19 has engendered both for families and for clinical practice, we at Family Process decided to focus a section that amounts in length to a typical issue of the journal on this topic and to have it ready in real time early in the pandemic. Our thanks to all of those who have written for this special section in the context of an extraordinarily tight time schedule as well as those who have contributed to it in other ways. This is a remarkable set of papers. The pandemic has activated family scholars, researchers, and couple and family therapists to examine and respond to the effects of the pandemic itself and its public health, social, and psychological consequences. Yet, one striking aspect of the papers in this issue is that, while the focus is about the response to a once in a lifetime experience and the work described is remarkably innovative, this work also taps into long-standing threads in family studies and family therapy. This is most apparent in the one place where innovation is most prevalent, the impact of technology. Although some cutting-edge practices, especially in the areas of evidence-based methods of service delivery and online relationship enhancement programs (Georgia Salivar, Rothman, Roddy, & Doss, 2018; Roddy, Nowlan, & Doss, 2017), have featured exchanges mediated by technology, suddenly there were no in-person meetings. Almost all clinical service came to be delivered through videoconferencing with research conducted through this and other technologies. This may have seemed to many to be a radical departure in therapy and research. Yet, one very prominent foundation of family therapy and family science has always been in the widespread use of the latest technology, long before these technologies became ubiquitous. Just as Kraftwerk and David Bowie with Brian Eno spliced audio tape together to create the first versions of what is now is easily manipulated in electronic music, family scientists and family therapists recorded treatment sessions and family interactions in the 1970s on what was then a giant one-half inch videotape and even catalogued a multitude of ways to use those videotapes in treatment (Alger & Hogan, 1967). Going back to the time of the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic, research laboratories and therapy and training sites also featured one-way viewing mirrors accessorized with state-of-the-art audio and video equipment. And trainees regularly audiotaped and then later made videos of their therapy sessions even before smartphones existed (Watzlawick & Weakland, 1977). These methods (as well as researchers gathering information online) became widespread, yet mostly out of focus until the cataclysm in the technology revolution that came with COVID-19 when almost all therapy moved to videoconferencing, and research to videoconferencing and online systems of data gathering. We are fortunate to have in this issue a comprehensive article by Burgoyne and Cohn (2020) that presents guidelines for videoconferencing in couple and family therapy based on their experience in a program that has conducted thousands of such post-COVID sessions. Their article helps speak to both what are generic aspects of couple and family teletherapy and to the complexities in moving varied treatment methods and clients (and therapists) into teletherapy1. Closely related, this issue also features an article by Sahebi (2020) about post-COVID couple and family therapy clinical supervision as well as an article by Nadan and colleagues (Nadan et al., 2020) describing the adaptation of live supervision to videoconferencing. There is a paucity of literature about adapting videoconferencing methods in couple and family therapy and supervision (Connolly, Miller, Lindsay, & Bauer, 2020; Pickens, Morris, & Johnson, 2020). For the beginner who wants to learn further about the basics of generic teletherapy examining topics such as legal issues and videoconferencing services (e.g., how to choose a videoconferencing service or guidelines for confidentiality), there are many good resources; for example, see Guidelines for Teletherapy at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Helping_Give_Away_Psychological_Science/Telepsychology. A timely recent a recent special issue of the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration (2020) has also been devoted to teletherapy. Another long-standing thread in the family field surrounds systemic coping in the wake of trauma and loss. Family Process has had the good fortune through the years to publish many of the most important papers by Froma Walsh (Walsh, 1996, 2003, 2016), Kaethe Weingarten (Weingarten, 2010, 2012; Weingarten, 2013, 2015; Weingarten & Worthen, 2018), Evan Imber-Black (Imber-Black, 2006, 2011, 2014), and John Rolland (Rolland, 1987, 2017; Rolland & Williams, 2005); most with this focus. In this issue, each provides inspirational and evocative thoughts about family processes in these times. Walsh (2020) applies her iconic resilience oriented systemic perspective about loss that contextualizes the distress and mobilizes relational resources to support grief processes and positive adaptation. Weingarten and colleagues (Weingarten, Galvan-Duran, D'Urso, and Garcia, 2020) describe the implementation of the Witness to Witness program for Latinx immigrants anchored in Weingarten’s witnessing model. Imber-Black (2020) writes about the importance of adapting rituals to and for these times, while Rolland (2020) describes adapting his systemic model of families and illness to COVID-19. Following related paths, Fraenkel and Cho (2020) and Lee (2020) accentuate the emerging importance of spirituality in their own work. Family therapy and family systems research have also had an emphasis from their earliest days on the impact of larger system issues on families. Certainly, the pandemic itself presents a monumental larger system issue for all families. The stress engendered by the disease coupled with increased social isolation directly increases individual anxiety and psychopathology, and further potentiates those effects through creating the conditions for increased expressed emotion in families and in society (McFarlane, 2016; Miklowitz & Chung, 2016). Beyond the larger system impact of the virus itself, the pandemic has also unleashed powerful regressive systemic forces. Early family scholars and therapists often spoke of the forces of homeostasis and morphogenesis in social systems (Watzlawick & Weakland, 1977). Manijeh Daneshpour (personal communication, 2020) reminds us that one of the founders of family therapy, Murray Bowen (Bowen, 1978), spoke eloquently about regression in the wake of chronic sustained anxiety and the lessening of adaptive capacities. Such forces are now readily apparent. There are also counteracting forces moving toward progress in naming and addressing underlying problems, as in a raised consciousness about racial and income inequality. Incredible stories of heroism, coping, and resilience co-occur with other stories showing the worst in obliviousness and short-sighted selfishness. Both light and darkness surround us. Clearly, the larger system now has a very major effect on the lives of families and therapy with those families. In their articles in this issue, Watson, Bacigalupe, Daneshpour, Han, and Parra-Cardona (2020), and Fraenkel and Cho (2020) argue persuasively for broad attention to larger system issues, both in living in the world and as therapists. Notably, some of the metalevel conversation about living in the world and about therapy that is emerging (Fraenkel & Cho, 2020; Walsh, 2020) looks more like the existential views accentuating meaning and acceptance that characterized many therapists in the 1950s (Frankl, 1963; May & Yalom, 1989) than the underlying implicit optimism (Messer & Winokur, 1984) of cognitive–behavioral, solution-focused, or humanistic ideas that have most recently been more widely prevalent. Yet another strong tradition is in our field is that of social justice and social action. In their article in this issue, Watson et al. (2020) painfully illustrate the inequality unleashed by the pandemic across so many different systems, accentuating race and social class. They emphasize the ethical and moral responsibility of family therapists to promote and advocate for the broader continuum of health, the environment, and economic justice so that they can become part of the solution to inequities at work in the impact of COVID-19. Clearly, COVID-19 has not equally affected all people; more marginalized populations are much more affected. Many of the other authors in our special section explicitly highlight this transcendent fact (Falicov, Niño, & D'Urso, 2020; Fraenkel & Cho, 2020; Imber-Black, 2020; Rolland, 2020; Walsh, 2020). Multiple viruses are attacking at the same time; some have been with us longer. In their articles, Weingarten et al. (2020) and Falicov et al. (2020) respond to such calls to action, describing innovative programs of social action aimed at diverse groups most affected by the pandemic. These programs provide examples of how COVID-19 has sparked an increase in community-focused public health-oriented work with families that has deep historic roots in family studies and family therapy. Other papers in this special section focus on couple relationships during the pandemic and the pragmatics of offering help to couples in therapy. Stanley and Markman (2020) highlight the challenges to couples in this time and how to thrive as a couple. Gordon and Mitchell (2020) describe the special aspects of working with infidelity during the pandemic; while I (Lebow, 2020b) speak to the special aspects of divorce and working with divorcing couples and families in this time (Fraenkel, 2019; Lebow, 2019a, 2019b). Another long-standing value in our field is science. While the family field long ago included voices who questioned the importance of science, fortunately this antiscience position seems to have faded. The pandemic certainly has demonstrated how risky it becomes when science is ignored. A drug with one very small, promising clinical trial turned into the obsession of Donald Trump and other policymakers (at one point purchasing millions of doses of the drug later shown in several randomized clinical trials to be ineffective). Similarly, the science of public health medicine with its clear directives for stemming contagious diseases has been ignored by many policymakers in the United States and elsewhere. There are endless important questions about how families respond to COVID-19 and shelter-in-place. We are very early in the process of learning what these effects are and how to be most helpful in the wake of those effects. It is easy to provide (as some do) vacuous answers about the pandemic. However, to fully understand the complex processes occurring in families, much research is needed. For example, what impact does the increased time together without escape have on families? Do rates of conflict, divorce, intimate partner violence, and family violence increase? Do people report increases or decreases in relationship satisfaction and family functioning? Do specific areas of family life improve (e.g., father–child closeness or sibling connection) while others decrease? Do family variables associated with increased risk for vulnerable family members such as expressed emotion increase? What do the overall picture of family changes look like? Do the answers to these various questions vary with the culture, financial well-being, family background, or individual personalities of family members? We may be surprised by the findings. For example, Stanley and Markman (2020) point out in their article that what probably is the best polling thus far about couples during the pandemic found that the vast majority of couples report their relationships being unchanged in terms of their level of relationship satisfaction. And recent NORC surveys found that Americans had more contact with family in this period than in previous years (NORC, 2020a). In contrast, clinical reports of intimate partner violence and other family violence seem very much on the rise, while the reporting of such violence to authorities seems to be lower than usual. NORC surveys also have reported more depression, loss of temper, and anxiety, irritability, and lack of companionship than in earlier years (NORC, 2020b). In their paper, Brock and Laifer (2020) take us on a voyage through the kinds of research about families during the pandemic most likely to be of interest, as well as the issues researchers have faced as the pandemic has affected research. We are already seeing the beginning of what surely will be the extensive exploration of the pandemic as a topic in family research. In the first four months of the pandemic, Family Process received for evaluation 10 research papers focused on family reactions. This issue contains two of these papers. Behar-Zusman, Chavez, and Gattamorta (2020) describe a very useful measure of assessing the impact of social distancing on the family during the pandemic. Günther-Bel et al. (2020) describe the results of a study assessing family process during the lockdown in Spain, early in the pandemic. Other articles in this series look at the pandemic from still other perspectives. Dickerson (2020) describes responses within the postmodern community of therapists, trainers, and scholars. Lee (2020) writes about reactions in Hong Kong and, more generally, in Asia, while Rivett (2020) describes the impact in the United Kingdom and its mental healthcare system. In their articles, Lee (2020) and Rivett (2020) also share some of their personal voyages during this time, reminding us how experiences like this one reshape our view of the world and our therapies. It has been fascinating to read this collection of papers from some of our finest family scholars, family therapists, and family researchers. There are so many valuable insights in these papers written from a variety of perspectives and with a range of specific foci. The reader will also find a great deal of valuable practical advice for families and those in clinical practice. Ultimately, a transcendent collective message of hope emerges based in recognizing and working with the ever-present reality of loss and risks; of the power of systemic processes; and of family resilience anchored in acceptance, meaning, and connection that can help us cope, transcend, and grow during these times." @default.
• W3080459612 created "2020-09-01" @default.
• W3080459612 creator A5027547665 @default.
• W3080459612 date "2020-08-28" @default.
• W3080459612 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W3080459612 title "COVID‐19, Families, and Family Therapy: Shining Light into the Darkness" @default.
• W3080459612 cites W1977639214 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W1981314484 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W1987301376 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2007481021 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2041756667 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2053517179 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2074146935 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2081476916 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2110273402 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2114432920 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2122869408 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2150794882 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2159276518 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2268923520 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2460374466 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2482154376 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2567201875 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2753464010 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2790317210 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2891069541 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2901429985 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2903636848 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2903852572 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2915051675 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2963145086 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2964331947 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2994632099 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W2998225449 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3024344186 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3034993341 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3037033182 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3037067053 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3037342715 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3037630223 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3037743955 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3038081399 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3038460130 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3038770579 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3039446911 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3040653516 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3041136900 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3041271416 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3041748312 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3042364639 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3042407061 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3042531122 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3042533477 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3044172523 @default.
• W3080459612 cites W3046469647 @default.
• W3080459612 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12590" @default.
• W3080459612 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7461170" @default.
• W3080459612 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32856753" @default.
• W3080459612 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3080459612 type Work @default.
• W3080459612 sameAs 3080459612 @default.
• W3080459612 citedByCount "14" @default.
• W3080459612 countsByYear W30804596122020 @default.
• W3080459612 countsByYear W30804596122021 @default.
• W3080459612 countsByYear W30804596122022 @default.
• W3080459612 countsByYear W30804596122023 @default.
• W3080459612 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3080459612 hasAuthorship W3080459612A5027547665 @default.
• W3080459612 hasBestOaLocation W30804596121 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C116675565 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C1276947 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C159047783 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C2779027399 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C3006700255 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C3007834351 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C3008058167 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C524204448 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C66509814 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C11171543 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C116675565 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C121332964 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C126322002 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C1276947 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C15744967 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C159047783 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C2779027399 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C2779134260 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C3006700255 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C3007834351 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C3008058167 @default.
• W3080459612 hasConceptScore W3080459612C524204448 @default.

• next