6Research As Daily Practice as an Agency Asset

Sally St. George and Dan Wulff

In this chapter we present both the rationale for using Research As Daily Practice (St. George et al., 2015a) in social service agencies and how to do it. We will describe how this way of engaging in and merging research practice can be useful for agencies and their staff, students and practicum supervisors, and university social work programs. Social service agencies provide much-needed services for their communities, many times including serving as a site for social work students to get valuable practical experience. With heavy workloads and demands at agencies, inviting practicum students to join the agency for a semester or two may seem unreasonable, perhaps impossible. Our presentation in this chapter about using Research As Daily Practice as an agency practice can facilitate significant inclusion of practicum students as well as provide other tangible assets for the agency.

Because Research As Daily Practice is newly evolving, most agencies have not heard of it. This is written for social service agencies along with social work students and faculties with the hope that this sparks interest to take a closer look at how it could be beneficial. As you will soon read, many aspects of Research As Daily Practice may already be part of an agency’s practice. We will demonstrate how those already existing practices are fundamentally research practices but perhaps just not thought of in that way.

Let us introduce ourselves. We are spouses and colleagues and have worked together for over 20 years within two different graduate social work faculties. We refer to ourselves as “pracademics,” a word that highlights our integrative work across research, teaching, and clinical practice as well as across the fields of social work and marital and family therapy. We created Research As Daily Practice to work in those areas of intersection because pragmatically, keeping each activity separate was difficult, less effective, and time intensive. Additionally, we found that working at the edges of each activity or initiative and in those places of intersection allowed us to see situations differently and to develop new approaches and practices.

We believe that social agencies and the practitioners within these agencies benefit by consistently examining what they do and how they do it. One of the ways to do this is by responding to questions of concern arising within the daily work of the organization by understanding and using research processes that make sense within the organization’s current practice and context. We advocate for an approach to research that we call Research As Daily Practice that is a unity of what has been customarily divided into separate activities called “research” and “practice” and happens as we are practicing. Reconceptualizing research and practice as that which happens in the daily activities of practitioners and agencies creates possibilities for greatly enhancing the work being done for clientele and communities in real time as well as for improving the climate of the workplace.

As we look back on our creation of Research As Daily Practice, we now see how the process we used in coming up with it actually was the process of Research As Daily Practice itself! We had an issue (too many disparate things to accomplish); we looked around for new ways to address it differently including consulting with others, conceptualizing how research and practice could be approached as the same thing, trying it out; and continually evolving it—even as we write this chapter. It has a commonsensical ring to it. Some see it as so basic as to be unremarkable. But the simplicity of it and the reasonableness of it are a couple of its chief selling points (Wulff & St. George, 2020).

This more inclusive conceptualization of research to include what we think of as practice can help social agencies become a learning organization that foregrounds an interest in improving what is done and how it is done through steady reflection. Learning and changing are understood as constant and desired. The organization regularly revisits its practices to confirm its value and/or modify its practices. Seeing research as embedded in everything the agency does is a key component in facilitating this ongoing reflective process.

We originally designed Research As Daily Practice in the clinical practice context because that is where we were working as social workers. However, we have seen the potential for using it in any practice or organizational context (e.g., social agencies, counseling centres, hospitals, shelters, businesses, schools) and in both domestic and international settings. Additionally, we see Research As Daily Practice as relevant for entire agencies or organizations, not just individuals or small groups within them.

What is Research As Daily Practice?

We have previously written about the conceptualization of Research As Daily Practice (St. George et al., 2015a, 2015b; Wulff & St. George, 2014) and offered some examples of how we have enacted it in a family therapy clinical setting (Wulff, St. George, & Tomm, 2015; Wulff, St. George, Tomm, & Doyle, 2015). In its most basic form, we used Research As Daily Practice as a process for practitioners to take time to attend to questions that arise in their daily work and connect with colleagues to figure out the best ways to systematically inquire into those questions. Using what we already do as part of our daily routines, we decide what data or information is necessary and design the best ways to examine the information to better understand what is happening and how to advance our work. For example, at the family therapy centre where we did our work, “reflecting teams” (Friedman, 1995) were a regular part of how family therapy was conducted. In two of the Research As Daily Practice projects we conducted, we used reflecting teams as a way to collect and analyze the data we were developing (Wulff, St. George, & Tomm, 2015). Using reflecting teams also was crucial in producing some alterations in the design of the projects.

As we continue to develop the strategy, we sometimes use established research methodologies and methods or their variations that are in sync with our clinical practices (e.g., situational, discourse, and narrative analyses and mixed methods), but we are not limited by established research analyses. We center on the issues we face in the field and look for methodologies to assist us in that effort and modify them as needed. Methodologies are adjusted to fit the issues we are examining—the ones that have worked best for us have been those that mirrored the processes in which we proceed in practice.

Benefits of Including Research As Daily Practice

We would like to list advantages or benefits that we see (and have seen) in using Research As Daily Practice, highlighting particularly that this process needs no extra funding, nor does it need to take extra time. Agencies are busy places and oftentimes struggle when new initiatives require more time and more money, but because Research As Daily Practice is part of what an agency is already doing, it only requires some fine tuning of established practices.

Agency Benefits

One of the first and most obvious benefits we have noticed in including Research As Daily Practice in agencies was better morale. When staff come together in common projects that are directly related to their experience at the agency, their sense of being a part of something meaningful and that utilizes their talents increases. These initiatives need to be substantive and lead to jointly-constructed plans and actions. By working together, staff can get to know each other better, particularly if it is a large agency with lots of diverse programming. Common initiatives can help re-orient feelings of competitiveness for scarce resources.

Another benefit to incorporating Research as Daily Practice into a social agency is that a learning community is created. By participating in Research As Daily Practice, all members become community collaborators and co-learners. The agency may come to be seen as a flexible and responsive organization that learns from experience and makes use of practice-based evidence. Rather than becoming rigid in its practices, this process valorizes change and newness. This can be an attractive asset for agencies when recruiting new staff.

A third advantage of Research As Daily Practice to agencies is that it helps develop relevant innovative projects. Agencies and organizations can be seen as leaders in new programming approaches for their clients and communities. Agencies can be recognized as places where innovation happens, becoming a leader in their field. Inquiring into the organizational patterns can lead to the development of new initiatives to enhance current practices and programs. These new understandings of client and worker situations can lead to agencies investigating the possibilities for pilot projects to increase service delivery options. These new plans may produce new funding streams for the agency, which could help it diversify its budget, protecting the agency from economic hard times.

A fourth benefit is that engaging in Research As Daily Practice can serve as a form of supervision because it can be used as a means of group supervision that enhances good practice and support for clinicians, administrators, and other team members. Supervision can be associated with a culture of support rather than oversight and surveillance, freeing up people to be more generative in their thinking and interacting.

Practitioner Benefits

One of the greatest benefits of Research As Daily Practice for practitioners is that we could develop new ideas to help with our “stuck” cases, those we were unsure of how to work with effectively. When common aspects or issues of practice situations are noticed and shared across caseloads, new ways of seeing are possible. When a case is thought of as a one-off situation, certain elements of the situation may not surface. But when a case is thought about in terms of its similarity to other cases, more elements of the situation may become more visible. Looking across caseloads allows each case situation to be considered within a “class” of situations that may highlight elements that may be less pronounced when looking at only one item in a class of situations.

Another benefit of looking for connections across client or practice situations is the increased likelihood that larger issues involved in client situations will come to the fore, helping practitioners develop understandings of how macro issues are implicated in micro troubles. These larger patterns may promote innovative practices (e.g., bringing clients together to discuss common problems, recognizing service delivery problems in the community). Patterns within workplace regulations and policies can also reveal the unwittingly embedded constraints or enhancements that affect work with clients.

When approaching these situations as inquirers and looking for ways to make sense, practitioners can develop more and different ideas to make their work more exciting and efficient. Beyond casework, when considering other practical elements of agency work (i.e., agency policies and procedures, intakes, paperwork, workloads, office space), collective discussions inclusive of many viewpoints and perspectives increase the alternatives from which to make plans and decisions. Collaborative conversations about common agency issues and concerns ground those issues in frontline viewpoints and increase the level of commitment to whatever ideas are used.

A benefit of regular engagement in Research As Daily Practice meetings has been increased connection with other practitioners because it brings practitioners together regularly to consider issues of common concern. With agency work becoming increasingly busy, opportunities for staff to come together in meaningful common cause validates relationships and builds camaraderie. Morale boosting can be advantageous when agencies face many stresses related to time and money.

Benefits to Agency Clientele

When practitioners come together in Research As Daily Practice, the chances for new and creative ideas increase, which can translate into alternative and new practices being made available for agency clientele or customers. With new ideas on the rise, clientele can have a sense that their agency is continually developing ideas to address their particular situation or context. Rather than feel like they are being plugged into a pre-existing program or service, they might feel like the particulars of their issues or challenges are taken into account.

With new approaches being developed and applied for agency clientele, those consumers can be consulted about their experiences with new approaches and can provide direct feedback, involving them in the development of the practices that they and others benefit from. What they say matters to the practitioners who are developing alternative ideas and approaches.

Student Benefits

As practicum students have used Research As Daily Practice, they have said they feel like they are part of things at their field agency. They are included with the staff as contributors to the Research As Daily Practice process, as colleagues. Students oftentimes lack confidence because they are new to the field or the practice, but using Research As Daily Practice allows their perspectives to be valued as highly as anyone else’s; their voices are invited and heard.

Students can see and experience creativity and collaboration at work. They see and hear more experienced professionals move in collaborative and forward-thinking ways—in practice not just theory—and can provide valuable modelling for their future professional practice.

Students can add a fresh perspective to agency conversations and feel valued for their contributions; their understandings of things that are not steeped in long-term experience are considered fresh and less influenced by historical standards of practice, rather than as naïve or inexperienced. This can be an irreplaceable contribution to agency conversations and may boost student confidence.

The Process of Research As Daily Practice

The process of Research As Daily Practice is not prescriptive and not necessarily ordered. To start using the strategy, determine a systematic way to answer any questions that come from your work by doing what makes sense and is in line with the ways in which you work. You can use the following sequence.

1. Identify a question or issue based in the work you do. This is the question of inquiry, the central issue that animates the research. It should be significant and make a difference in the work.
2. Ask if anyone else in your agency or practice is asking about the same question. This invites perspectives on the central issue from various stakeholder viewpoints. This is part of data generation. Understanding how others think about or approach the issue helps expand thinking around the issue creating a connection with others.
3. Discuss how others understand the issue to build more breadth and depth and to build and keep momentum. Each person will have a somewhat different understanding of the issue and their own level of energy with which to engage. This furthers data generation.
4. Go to the literature. Read widely regarding the issue, is in a sense, reaching out to others who have been engaged with the issue from many different places, times, and contexts to further your understanding. This is another step in data generation. The wider the literature search, the greater likelihood that you will find perspectives that differ from your own. The aim here is to deliberately find alternatives that expand thinking rather than confirming what is already known.
5. Use case or meeting notes to identify ideas that are present in professional documentation. This is a way to mine what is already known about the issue, giving us a chance to see how our ideas to this point are embedded in the documentation. Again, more data generation. Our written renditions of the issues can be viewed as a history-taking of the issue and an indication of how the issue has been taken up by our agency protocols and expectations.
6. Compare and contrast, sift through, examine, and take notice of what we have assembled, that is, analyze the data. During this step, you may see how you had become stuck on the central question and imagine a wider variety of options than you thought possible.
7. Examine the newness you have brought forward from your data generation and analysis. Use the work and our conversations to conceptualize anew, to take new actions regarding your issue of concern. What you do and change may be small scale or large, but it is the change that is exciting. You are not finished; you need to go full circle and examine the new strategies you are experimenting with in order to see their utility and effect(s), and perhaps modify as needed. We have often found that our original articulations of the issues of concern become reshaped into more focused or expanded versions through this process.

There are many ways that Research As Daily Practice might be used. We identify four types of questions or issues that could be raised in an agency and identify specific questions that could be used to advance inquiries through the first two steps in the process. The subsequent steps will not be specified for these four specific questions or issues because the steps that follow will be more common across questions.

Step 1: Identify a problem, question, or issue of concern.

• Practitioner: The majority of client families on my caseload report parent-child conflict in which the kids are tyrannical, controlling the house and their family members, and running away or inconsolable when things do not go their way. I have ways to discuss conflicts between parents and children that have worked in the past, but they do not seem as effective as they used to be. In addition, the level of aggression and violence seems to be much higher recently. Given that my ideas may not be constructive, the consequences in terms of violence among family members alarms me. If I cannot find ways of helping them out of this, there is real danger. I feel like I should do more, but when my old ways do not work, I am at a loss.
• Agency administrator: The number of clients who are no-shows has risen steadily over the last 12 months. This puts a stress on everyone and reduces our ability to reach as many clients as we possibly can. We are not sure how to address this, but we know we must do something other than just hope it gets better or create punitive policies for clients who do not show up.
• Teacher: The switch to online education has been extremely stressful and the worst part of it is teaching students who refuse to have their screens on. I cannot tell if they are even there, much less how much they are learning or what their growing edges are. Am I the only one who is befuddled and stressed by this? Is my concern legitimate or is this just the “new normal” for online education?
• Policy writer: Writing policies for social services in times of financial cutbacks poses some real challenges. We have always worked to create policies that focus on enhancing the work we do and appreciate how these policies affect our staff. The economic pressures on our agency are such that policies are increasingly centered on maximizing organizational output with reduced funding. We seem to be drifting away from providing the most beneficial services and programs to our community in favor of becoming leaner in what we do. Marketplace concerns are overriding our goal of serving our community. This feels wrong but we want to stay in business, so it doesn’t seem like we have any options.

Step 2: Ask if anyone else in the agency or practice is having similar concerns.

• Practitioner: At a clinical rounds meeting a practitioner asks, “Is anyone noticing a similar trend?” or “Is anyone else struggling with this?”
• Agency administrator: In an agency staff meeting, the administrator asks, “We would like to open up a discussion about how we can better address the issue of client no-shows. We believe this is a burden for everyone to some degree, so input from everyone is important.”
• Teacher: At a teacher’s meeting, the teacher asked: “Am I the only one struggling with the students not turning their screens on when I teach online? Has anyone found some good ways to approach this? Am I concerned about something that I shouldn’t be? Could we have a discussion about this?”
• Policy writer: In an agency-wide meeting, a policy writer explains, “As policy writers, we are feeling pulled away from creating new and better services for our community in favor of writing policies that focus mostly on ways of keeping our costs down. We are not opposed to cost-effectiveness, but this seems to be going too far. We feel more like bureaucrats and accountants rather than innovators for community betterment. Are there ideas you have on how to keep our focus on our community?”

Questions like those found in the examples invite others in the organization to acknowledge issues or difficulties being experienced and to share their own ideas. In addition to generating some useful ideas or initiatives, the process opens the door to collectively face issues experienced within the agency and to offer support to one another.

Step 3: Discuss with colleagues their understanding of the issues. We hope that you can see the continuation of the inquiry process into sharing multiple ways of seeing these issues or dilemmas from different stakeholders. (We would like to note that we are not searching for answers or solutions to the dilemmas, we are serious about the inquiring steps and believe they are necessary to shaping and designing change. We have often found that short-circuiting these inquiring steps to be costly and/or demoralizing). Discussions with colleagues often start with questions; examples of questions that help start conversations follow.

• What words and phrases do we hear from stakeholders as they consider these issues? Do we hear a variety of things or are we hearing the same thing over and over?
• What words and phrases do we use repeatedly use when we talk about these issues?
• What kinds of rules, traditions, and voices are we loyal to as we examine these dilemmas? Who or what influences our preferred patterns or expectations?

These questions (and others like them) encourage us to look for patterns in how we and other stakeholders are shaped in our thinking and actions by prior experiences, traditions, and standards. These questions focus our attention on how the difficulties or dilemmas we face may be influenced by others’ expectations of us. This may make change challenging if the idea of changes to practices may be discouraged by loyalty to particular people or methods, disciplinary expectations, or established standards or policies.

Step 4: Go to the literature. This is a useful step regardless of the issue. Not all knowledge is located in the professional literature, but it does convey a significant amount of the shared wisdom in a field or on a topic. The literature includes research, theoretical writing, theses and dissertations, creative writing, and writing from related fields. The following are examples of questions you can ask when you review the research.

• What terminology is repeated in the literature on this topic?
• What themes seem to be consistent?
• Are there important distinctions within the literature on how something is understood or evaluated?

Our disciplinary backgrounds are important to our understandings about our work. Tracing professional literature and research in various related fields regarding how we conceptualize our work may reveal some possibilities for variability or may reassert understandings that guide us into places of impasse within our work. We may notice some dead ends in the ways we have learned to work with clients, supervisors, colleagues, and the larger community from prior training or reading. It is possible that we may find some built-in biases or pre-understandings that may be unwarranted. Noticing these stoppages may help us see how we might improvise or develop new practices from where our disciplinary training has left off. These places may be sites of innovation that could contribute to and extend our prior knowledge for ourselves and our colleagues. What we find in the literature can be woven into our agency conversations to build/expand them.

Step 5: Go to your case notes, agency reports, memos, and other professional documentation to identify discourses that are “invisibly” present.

• What kinds of unexamined or taken-for-granted conceptualizing and conversing show up in our professional documentation?
• What themes run through the way we write about our work? How has our work been conveyed to the public over time?

These questions stimulate thinking about the kinds of pre-understandings that went into forming the written documentation and by extension, the observations and behaviors that these were attempting to capture. This is taking a reflective position, inviting a more contextualized examination of a text that can provide much explicit and implicit information. Principles of practice and reporting are built into the ways we write about and record what we do so they are excellent places to reflectively examine what we stand for and who we are.

Step 6: Compare and contrast, sift through, examine, and take notice of the various ways to approach and understand our concern.

• What kinds of unexamined or taken-for-granted conceptualizing and conversing have occupied our thinking to date?
• What accounts for our preferred courses of action?

In asking ourselves these questions we recognize that we have been operating from within a set of choices; perhaps we did not recognize the available possibilities. We may have been operating under some assumptions or pre-understandings that inhibit what we were trying to accomplish. We might find ourselves acting under the influence of particular ways of seeing and thinking that prevents us from seeing in another way.

Step 7: What newness/freshness does this examination offer in terms of conversing, conceptualizing, and intervening within our current situation?

• What new ways of thinking and joining with others are more apparent to us now?
• What new questions can we create that can help us expand our understanding of our area of concern even further?

With these questions, we consider some of the information that grew out of this process. By this point, we may recognize that new ideas and conceptualizations are emerging from our data and that interesting new questions have surfaced. New questions may stimulate this process to begin again. In this sense, there is an “action research” cycle feel to Research As Daily Practice. It is a never-ending process that continues to spawn new ideas and initiatives.

Narrative Example of the Steps

Agencies typically have procedures for gathering information about new clients. This information may include demographics of the client’s life, history, financial situation, presenting problem(s), and other personal questions. In the following example, Dan, who worked for a home-based family therapy and social service agency, had a set of questions that he was required to ask during the first meeting with the family. There were about 30 questions, and the answers were written on an assessment form.

When using this assessment procedure, a family expressed surprise regarding one of the questions. While the presenting problem for this family was a teenager who was doing poorly in school and “running around with bad kids,” this question surprised the family: “when giving birth to [your son], was it a difficult childbirth?” The mother could not understand what the answer had to do with the current situation, and Dan did not himself know the relevance of this question—he was only asking it because it was on the form.

When Dan returned to the agency office, he asked other workers about the intake question. They explained that they did not understand why the question was on the form, but asked it because they were told to. All the workers felt uneasy about the question and felt it to be invasive, especially given the presenting reason Dan was working with them.

Dan asked the director of the agency about the reasoning for the assessment question. The director expressed surprise that the question was on the form because it had been added years ago to accommodate a doctoral researcher who had done her research in the agency two years earlier. The director suggested removing the question. Dan asked if it would be important to review all assessment questions to check for their current relevance. The director agreed and there were a series of meetings to look at which questions were no longer relevant and whether new questions would be useful.

The workers began by applying an overall question to each item on the assessment form: “What do we want an assessment to do and does this question contribute to that?” The group developed the following criteria for assessment questions that would be helpful in working with families: directly relatable to the presenting problem(s), easily understood by families (e.g., no professional jargon), phrased in ways that are supportive to the family, and few in number. This process of examining assessment questions which was started by a client’s question evolved into a broad review of assessment at the agency. This was a surprising, but welcome, development—one that was not anticipated at the beginning.

Dan and his colleagues researched assessment forms from other agencies through literature searches, and their discussions included considering other ways of performing assessments through a conversation that did not involve writing down answers to questions. The group decided to have a list of preferred questions that needed answering in intake meetings, but each practitioner could choose how to collect those answers — using a form or another means.

This process led to a general review of all documentation at the agency, with the intention of streamlining and updating written records. This also led into a discussion of the pros and cons of digitalizing records. This question of whether or not to move toward complete utilization of computers for paperwork became a new round for Research As Daily Practice.

Conclusion

We see our chapter as an invitation to agencies to muster the resources they possess in ways to profit from their staff and the work they already do. Research need not be an external initiative that is costly and time-consuming. By valuing their staff, their positioning in the community, their work, and their experiences, the agency has all the requisite parts to create a Research As Daily Practice initiative that can support innovation and promote the well-being of their staff in the process.

Additionally, Research As Daily Practice helps create an environment that maximizes the practicum value of the organization for students. Universities that seek practicum sites for their students would be excited to provide their students with the opportunities to learn in agencies that use “what they do to continuously examine their practices.” Research components in student learning contracts could be easily addressed in these settings. For a social work program, having a practicum site that provides a well-rounded educational field experience that includes both the micro and the macro would be ideal. Using Research As Daily Practice would be a valuable way for an agency to demonstrate how responding to ongoing critical challenges to their work is routinely built into the fabric of the organization.

Practicum students become relevant participants along with the staff of the agency in Research As Daily Practice initiatives by bringing in ideas from the outside, in particular the world of the university. This is an example of how a practicum student can create added value to the agency at a time when the thought of including a practicum student could feel like a drain of resources for an agency. Regular inclusion of practicum students from different faculties or different universities can add multiple dimensions to an agency because in a Research As Daily Practice setting, students can support the agency and help it grow. For students, being integrated in the agency in this setting affords them with the opportunity to experience more fully and deeply a sense of what work will be like in agencies after they graduate and enter the workforce, as well as what they can innovate.

The central thesis of this chapter is that research is already being done in social service agencies by social workers. A dominant discourse in our professional worlds has placed research into a special category that renders it significantly unavailable to those who do not have the requisite credentials and financing. We seek to expand that limited perspective to include everyone, including clients (who could actually be considered “researchers into their own lives”). Seeing research in our daily practices creates an awareness of a resource that has always been there, even if it has been largely unseen.

Discussion Questions

1. Seeing research and practice as the “same process, but languaged differently” may seem counter-intuitive given traditional social work texts and understandings. What are three compelling reasons why this understanding could make sense and be useful. What are three compelling reasons why it might not make sense or be useful?
2. List three activities in your practicum that could be understood as either practice or research. What words seem key in distinguishing an activity that is called practice and one that is called research?
3. Given your understanding of Research As Daily Practice, what are two issues that you would find worthwhile in using the strategy?
4. For an agency or colleague who has not heard of Research As Daily Practice, what are three key elements that you think would be important to highlight in presenting the idea to them?
5. What are ways that the principles and processes of Research As Daily Practice could be extended to include clients or customers of the social agency?

References

Friedman, S. (Ed.). (1995). The reflecting team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy. The Guilford Press.

St. George, S., Wulff, D., & Tomm, K. (2015a). Research As Daily Practice. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 34(2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49425-8_890

St. George, S., Wulff, D., & Tomm, K. (2015b). Talking societal discourse into family therapy: A situational analysis of the relationships between societal expectations and parent-child conflict. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 34(2), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1521/JSYT.2015.34.2.15

Wulff, D., & St. George, S. (2014). Research As Daily Practice. In G. Simon & A. Chard (Eds.), Systemic inquiry: Innovations in reflexive practice research (pp. 292–308). Everything is Connected Press.

Wulff, D., & St. George, S. (2020). We are all researchers. In S. McNamee, M. M. Gergen, C. Camargo-Borges, & E. F. Rasera (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social constructionist practice (pp. 68–76). Sage.

Wulff, D., St. George, S., & Tomm, K. (2015). Societal discourses that help in family therapy: A modified situational analysis of the relationships between societal expectation and healing patterns in parent-child conflict. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 34(2), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2015.34.2.31

Wulff, D., St. George, S., Tomm, K., Doyle, E., & Sesma, M. (2015). Unpacking the PIPs to HIPs curiosity: A narrative study. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 34(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2015.34.2.45