Introduction

Research in psychotherapy deals with two fundamental questions. The first query pertains to the outcome (“Was therapy beneficial?”), while the second addresses the process (“How did therapy progress?”). These questions relate to the two main types of research in this area– outcome research and process research (Timulak, 2008). Outcome research concentrates on our ability to identify and accurately gauge whether the desired therapeutic change occurred (Goodheart et al., 2006; Timulak, 2008). This question inevitably goes hand in hand with another that seeks to understand how the change occurred (Goodheart et al., 2006; Kazdin, 2009). The “how” question not only guides us to process research (Timulak, 2008), but it also poses a critical query concerning outcome research. In the context of scientific methodology, it is not enough to merely draw a conclusion about an outcome or even to posit a causal relationship between the outcome and the therapeutic dialogue without understanding the process of change and offering a logical explanation for it (Elliott, 2010; Kazdin, 2009; Watson & McMullen, 2016).

The “change process research” field is dedicated to answering this key question by positioning itself at the intersection of outcome and process research (Elliott, 2010; Greenberg, 1986; Watson & McMullen, 2016). Among the most recognized research designs used in this field, according to Elliott (2010), is the microanalytic sequential process design. This qualitative research design provides a detailed, direct insight into the change process, due to its focus on the conversations foundational to individual communication exchanges. Elliott emphasizes the importance of this research design:

Sequential process research is, nevertheless, an intuitively appealing, practice near approach that is capable of providing the basis for strong causal inference about important therapeutic change processes. For this reason, it needs to be accepted as a key line of evidence supporting evidence-based practice… Curiously, sequential process research has to date been primarily quantitative in nature. Qualitative microanalytic research is underdeveloped and, in my view, should be used more widely. (Elliott, 2010, p. 129).

Numerous methods, such as discourse flow analysis (Nitti et al., 2010), conversational analysis (Kondratyuk & Peräkylä, 2011; Peräkylä et al., 2008; Sutherland et al., 2014), narrative-based coding systems (Gonçalves et al., 2011, 2017), microanalysis (Bavelas, 2012; De Jong et al., 2020), and dialogical sequence analysis (Tikkanen et al., 2013), are based on microanalytic sequential process design. The Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA) is another method based on the microanalytical sequential process design discussed in this article. This article aims to introduce both the theoretical background and practical applications of the method. We divide the process of creating an RFA into eight steps similar to those used in discursive psychology (Lester et al., 2018). Although we know that the individual steps do not linearly follow each other but rather overlap, they can guide particularly novice researchers throughout the entire process. Although some publications already describe RFA (Chenail, 1995; Keeney et al., 2015), this division is new in the RFA literature. This text also offers innovations, particularly in outcomes presentation (visualization), and links to other research methods.

The Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines of RFA

The RFA was initially developed as a tool for clinical note-taking, close observation of therapeutic discourse, and generating new, creative possibilities for therapists’ actions and interventions (Keeney, 1990; Keeney & Keeney, 2012b). It has since been developed into a stand-alone qualitative research method suitable for closely examining therapeutic change (Chenail, 1995; Keeney et al., 2015).

A significant theoretical foundation for the development of this research method is found in the works of Bateson (1979, 2000), Goffman (1986), and Spencer-Brown (1994). It also draws upon complex systems theories, which some authors regard as highly vital for research on change processes (Hayes & Andrews, 2020; Schiepek et al., 2015, 2019). RFA is primarily based on second-order cybernetics in this regard (Chenail, 1991; Keeney, 1983, 1987; Keeney & Keeney, 2012a; von Foerster, 2002). Other key theoretical frameworks include social constructionism (Gergen, 2015; Chenail, 1991; Keeney & Keeney, 2012b) and the theory of performing arts (Keeney, 1990, 2009). We will address the theoretical underpinnings of RFA in greater detail across these three domains: (1) epistemological assumptions, (2) social constructionism and discursive psychology, and (3) performing arts.

Epistemological Premises

We can assert that the RFA is founded on three mutually interconnected epistemological premises, as formulated by Bateson (Bateson, 1979, 2000; Keeney & Keeney, 2012a): (1) the significance of distinctions, (2) the theory of logical types, and (3) the principle of recursivity (circularity).

Distinctions

According to Bateson, the act of distinguishing or recognizing differences¹ is the fundamental process of developing knowledge. Bateson posits that any information “consists of differences that make a difference” (Bateson, 1979, s. 99). Spencer-Brown presents a similar perspective, stating, “We take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indication, and that we cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction.” (Spencer-Brown, 1994, s. 1). These differences shape how we, humans, understand the world (Bateson, 1979; Keeney & Keeney, 2012a). It is crucial to perceive the act of making distinctions as a creative process– the distinctions are created rather than being pre-existing entities waiting to be discovered (Keeney & Keeney, 2012a). Accordingly, therapy and the use of RFA in research are essentially creative processes (Keeney & Keeney, 2012a).

Logical Types and the Frame/context Hierarchy

The distinctions can remain simple, or they can exist in more complex forms, thereby creating the so-called “frames”. As Keeney et al. articulated: “A distinction that sufficiently re-distinguishes itself becomes a frame, a context that holds the ongoing re-entries of subsequent re-distinction” (Keeney et al., 2015, s. 9). The terms “Frame” and “Context” mentioned in the previous sentence are understood as synonyms in the RFA (Chenail, 1995; Keeney et al., 2015).

According to Bateson, a frame might be analogous to the mathematical concept of sets– the fundamental difference being between the element of the set and the set itself (and logically, the set itself cannot be an element of itself, or else a paradox would ensue). Bateson (2000) identifies some typical functions of frames such as exclusivity (by including specific messages or meaningful actions within a frame, particular other messages are excluded), inclusivity (by excluding specific messages, others are included), relation to premises (a frame is involved in evaluating the relevance of the messages which it contains), meta-communicative function (a frame provides clues on how to interpret the messages inside it; simultaneously a meta-communicative message can redefine the frame), and “double framing” (the notion that there are always other frames inside or outside the frames, and thus frames constitute a certain hierarchy; there is no escape from framing and re-framing). Tracing changes in the hierarchy of frames and occasionally introducing hierarchy changes into a therapeutic conversation is a fundamental skill for a therapist. Analysis of frames and their relationships forms a fundamental activity in change process research using the RFA method.

Recursivity (Circularity)

According to Bateson (2000), the relationship between the frame (the context) and the elements of this context exhibits a circular (recursive) character. The ongoing process of distinction naturally leads to further differentiation and signification:

The dynamic of distinguishing, the ongoing re-entry of distinguishing distinction, is recursion, the circularity which operates upon itself, embodying the circling that creates circularity. Recursion is not repetition, but circular re-entry with the utilization and production of a different order of circularity. (Keeney & Keeney, 2012a, s. 87).

The authors illustrate recursion by referring to Ouroboros, the well-known symbol of a serpent biting its tail. A perhaps more fitting metaphor is a spiral, which embodies both circular movement and progression simultaneously. This emphasis on circularity reflects how elements of prior interactions are rediscovered and reused, and how conversational frames can transform into elements of other frames, and vice versa. Documenting these circular re-entries of frames in discourse is an important part of the RFA methodology.

Social Constructionism and Discursive Psychology

Social constructionism serves as an important theoretical source for RFA (Keeney & Keeney, 2012b). As early as his 1987 article, Keeney argued for an “ecosystemic understanding of discourse” and wrote:

The constructivists would propose that ‘How you act, is what you see.’ RFA goes a step further and reminds us that, ‘How you act is a consequence of whom you’re interacting with.’ Perception is therefore a social event, ranging from simple social groups where an individual interacts with herself to more complex mental systems involving the parts of many people. (Keeney, 1987, s. 26).

This statement aligns with social constructionism and distinguishes it from (radical) constructivism (Anderson, 1997; Gergen, 2015). The basic tenets of social constructionism can briefly be summarized as follows: (1) a critical stance towards a seemingly “granted” or “objective” reality, (2) an ongoing emphasis on historical and cultural contexts that shape our knowledge, and (3) the belief that meanings and knowledge are created in conversations (social construction of reality), with an emphasis placed on the role language plays in these meaning-making processes (Burr, 2003; Gergen, 1985, 2015; Lock & Strong, 2010).

Research tradition closely related to social constructionism (and particularly to RFA), include discursive psychology (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Chenail, 1995; Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney et al., 2015; Potter & Hepburn, 2007). One possible definition of “discourse” states: “Discourse is a fundamental medium for action. It is the medium,through which versions of the world are constructed and made urgent or reworked as trivial and irrelevant… Discourse is most simply defined as texts and talk as parts of social practices.” (Potter & Hepburn, 2007, s. 275–276). Thus, discourse can be viewed as a verb, not merely a noun (Potter & Hepburn, 2007). The above-mentioned description of “frames” (or “contexts”) is linked with this interpretation of discourse, as is the mutually constructive recursive relationship between distinctions and frames.

Discursive psychology is a flexible and open research methodology, which, much like the RFA, originates from the social constructionist philosophy and focuses on the performative aspects of conversations (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Lester et al., 2018; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Although its methodology is influenced mainly by conversational analysis (Wooffitt, 2005), it also utilizes a variety of other methods (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Lester et al., 2018; Wiggins, 2017), particularly to incorporate micro and macro levels of discourse into the analysis (Nikander, 2007; Wooffitt, 2005).

Performing Arts

The performing arts have been often cited as a source of inspiration for the RFA. Bradford Keeney, one of the creators of the RFA, is a jazz piano player and composer. He conceptualizes the helping profession as having an artistic character (Keeney, 1990, 2009). His interest in performing arts led him and his colleagues to create a method that captures the quality of a therapist’s “performance” alongside the progression of the conversation. This performance orientation is strongly supported by social constructionism:

Performance is one of the cutting-edge practices of social constructionist theory… The performative turn is related to the blurring of the boundaries between art and science, literary and scientific, real and virtual, and nature and nurture… It turns theory on himself and questions the boundaries among research, practice, and theory… Performance is social constructionist notion of meaning making as communal process, in that it occurs in language and dialogue. (Bava, 2005, s. 172 a 174).

The creators of the RFA perceive the process of change in a helping conversation to be revealed in how the client discusses their situation with the therapist. If changes can be identified within these conversations, they may manifest in the clients’ lives outside of therapy (Gonçalves et al., 2011; Chenail, 1995; Nitti et al., 2010). Chenail compares the RFA to a hearing aid, which allows a person to hear sounds that would otherwise go unnoticed. Similarly, the RFA can help a researcher or therapist recognize meanings or differences in a conversation that would have otherwise been considered meaningless or just “noise” (Chenail, 1995, p. 4). The Field’s “three-act play” model, utilized in the RFA, functions like a hearing aid for detecting changes in therapeutic discourse (Keeney, 2009; Keeney et al., 2015).

This three-act model suggests that creative performance necessitates progressive shifts through three acts: an opening act, followed by a middle act that bridges to the culmination of the performance in an ending act (Keeney, 2009). This simple three-act structure aids in identifying whether any change occurs in a therapeutic conversation, moving from the original cycle of impoverished experience (Act 1) through the exploration of new possibilities (Act 2) to the development and consolidation of change and resources (Act 3). The complete process can be outlined as follows:

However, the transition between individual acts in therapy is neither linear nor unidirectional. The principle of recurzivity, or circularity, still applies, implying that the movement between acts occurs in a somewhat cyclical or revolving manner– from the vicious circle, where one gets stuck in a problem or trapped in an impoverished or pathological frame (Keeney et al., 2012), to a more desirable, constructive virtuous circle. The authors of the RFA describe the individual acts of this movement as follows:

We must, again and again, remind ourselves that neither a session nor life itself is a straight-ahead linear plot line. People go back and forth between frames, take side road exits, and most importantly, go in circles, or in other forms of loopy meanderings… Getting a virtuous circle of interaction in motion is the first goal of transformation and change. Keeping it moving is the second goal. The final goal is leaving it alone to continue feeding itself in a positive and resourceful manner. (Keeney et al., 2015, pp. 35–36).

In addition to the fact that the transition between individual acts is not linear, it is also not unidirectional. The second act is sometimes described as the “middle” or the “bridging” stage (Keeney, 1990, 2009) and can be compared to the movement of a pendulum (Keeney et al., 2015). As we transition into Act 2, a helping conversation seems to move away from the fragility of the impoverished frame towards something creative and potentially beneficial for the client. However, this move is just an initial step that can once again revert to the original impoverished frame, much like a pendulum does, or it can “merge” into Act 3, leading to the reinforcement and solidification of change and the creation of a new, resourceful framework (Keeney, 2009).

A useful therapeutic session usually includes several transitions between Acts 1, 2, and 3, revolving in both directions, before finally settling in Act 3. Conversely, a poorly executed therapeutic session tends to get stuck in Act 1 or finally reverts to it after some attempts to progress towards Acts 2 and possibly 3 have been made.

Guiding the conversation in the session towards beneficial frameworks is in line with numerous research studies that underscore the significance of “extratherapeutic,” “life,” or “client” factors in therapeutic change (Duncan et al., 2004, 2010; Sprenkle et al., 2013; Wampold, 2001). These factors are not generalizable because they vary with each client and they come about one client at a time in a specific context (Duncan, 2010). Examples include a client’s skills, knowledge, motivation, social support, job or close relationships changes, spirituality, personal traits, etc. Even though client factors are challenging to quantify, it is vitally important to identify and “activate” these factors as resources for therapeutic change, regardless of the therapeutic approach used (Duncan, 2010; Flückiger et al., 2009). In other words, therapeutic approaches offer numerous ways to get from impoverished to more resourceful frames. RFA is one of the research methods in psychotherapy that can capture “conversational/discursive evidence” (Strong et al., 2008) of resources and beneficial contexts that emerge during conversation (Keeney et al., 2015).

The Practice of Using the Recursive Frame Analysis

There are only a few publications that describe how to use RFA. Nevertheless, they show that the use of RFA as a research methodology is not fixed or strictly manualized, and there are numerous ways to carry out RFA (Cotton, 2010; Chenail, 1995; Keeney, 1990; Keeney et al., 2015; Pelak, 2016; Peng, 2014). This flexibility is intentional, reflecting the radical concept of the “self-inclusion of the researcher” (Keeney et al., 2015). In this text we describe RFA in eight general overlapping steps, similar to those used in discursive psychology (Keeney et al., 2015; Lester et al., 2018; Wiggins, 2017): (1) Research objective, (2) Data collection, (3) Data processing, (4) Transcription, (5) Data analysis, (6) Presentation of outcomes and the visualization forms of the RFA, (7) Additional methods of analysis, and (8) Quality management of the research.

Research Objective

RFA is generally utilized to analyze the performative level of language use in conversations. Thus, any type of conversation can be subjected to RFA (Keeney et al., 2012). However, it cannot be used to directly study perceptions or any other presupposed “internal entities” that belong to the individual participants of a conversation, nor can it classify these “entities” (Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney et al., 2015). Typically, research studies using RFA as their methodology frame their objectives in relatively broad terms, developing these with the help of additional research questions (Keeney et al., 2015; Lester et al., 2018). In psychotherapy, change process studies employing RFA, the research question is typically centered on the shifts in therapeutic discourse, demonstrating how the change occurred within the session. More specific research questions can be formulated, reformulated, or added based on the actual work with the data. This approach allows for increased research flexibility and the inductive focus typically associated with qualitative research strategies (Lester et al., 2018).

Data Collection

The collection of data is directly linked to the research objective. Generally speaking, RFA aims to work with naturally occurring data that would exist even if not collected for research purposes (Potter & Hepburn, 2005; Wiggins, 2017). A typical and entirely “naturalistic” source of data for RFA comes from recordings of therapeutic sessions (Chenail, 1995; Lester et al., 2018). Ideally, for RFA, video recordings are preferred as they allow researchers to capture both verbal and non-verbal aspects of the conversation. However, it is also possible to use audio recordings alone to gain valuable insight into the changes in therapeutic discourse (Chenail, 1995; Rudes et al., 1997).

Data Processing

This phase is closely related to the previous one. During the data processing phase, the data is stored, shared, organized, transcribed, and annotated (Lester et al., 2018; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data processing phase needs to be conducted in a transparent, structured, legal, and ethical manner, which includes the protection of client confidentiality. The performance-oriented nature of the RFA requires the researchers to constantly oscillate between the recordings, the transcriptions, and the analytic procedures (Chenail, 1995; Keeney et al., 2015). Therefore, establishing the data processing system is a crucial step towards potential future success.

Transcription

As previously stated, the recordings need to be transcribed. Transcription is a crucial element of the analysis process (Chenail, 1995; Wiggins, 2017). It lays a “solid ground for the analysis” (Nikander, 2007), enables genuine empirical exploration (Keeney & Keeney, 2012b), and enhances the transparency of the study (Nikander, 2007). However, it is important to note that the transcripts cannot replace the primary database (O’Connell & Kowal, 1995). The analysis should always simultaneously incorporate the transcripts and recordings (Lester et al., 2018).

Transcription might be included in the previous phase (data processing), but due to its significance and time-consuming nature, it is often treated as a separate research phase (Lester et al., 2018). When transcribing the recordings, researchers can either follow one of the established transcription systems, such as the Jefferson system (Jefferson, 2004), or they can develop their own system, which then becomes a crucial tool in familiarizing themselves with the data (Lester et al., 2018). When deciding which transcription system to use, it is vital to consider the intended use of the transcript in the research study and to remember who will be the target audience of the resulting text (Mergenthaler & Stinson, 1992; O’Connell & Kowal, 1995). It is also essential to balance focusing on details and the number of transcription symbols and comments while considering the transcript’s feasibility, comprehensibility, and “intellectual elegance” (Mergenthaler & Stinson, 1992).

The RFA studies most commonly use simple transcriptions with only a minimal number of comments and symbols (Cotton, 2010; Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney et al., 2015; Peng, 2014). Following the recommendations of O’Connell and Kowal (1995) and Keeney et al. (2015), and in light of our own experience, we recommend the subsequent system (Table 1).

This straightforward transcription system allows us to generate rather intricate and intelligible transcriptions. All essential elements– barring intonation-related emphasis, which would make the transcription appear overly complex– are incorporated as straightforward comments in parentheses. Concurrently, these transcriptions serve as reference tools, supplementing the original recordings. Hence, all comments within them aim to function as indicators of some intriguing and significant occurrences within the conversation– they urge the researcher to cross-reference these substantial moments with the original recording. Owing to the consistent incorporation of time stamps, this form of transcription also facilitates quick navigation through the recording. Further transcription symbols can also be integrated into the transcription system, provided specific facets of the conversation need monitoring within the research.

Data Analysis

Chenail defines RFA as “a type of sequential analysis which helps researchers note semantic shifts in a conversation” (Chenail, 1995, s. 7). Throughout RFA, one can follow the content (what is said), the consequentiality (sequence of what is said and its impact), and the process (the flow from one topic to another) of the conversation, including how individual participants use language to create shifts in the discourse (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Chenail, 1995; Wiggins, 2017). Researchers can incorporate these observations directly into the transcripts using different types or colors of text to distinguish their interpretations from the raw transcripts (Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney et al., 2015; Wiggins, 2017). They can use suitable software (e.g., ELAN) or various methods of visualizing the RFA, which will be mentioned in the following section of the article. Chenail states that there are four basic levels of analysis used in RFA: semantic, sequential, pragmatic, and consensual² (Chenail, 1995; Chenail & Duffy, 2011).

Semantic Analysis

The semantic level of analysis focuses on capturing the elements that carry meaning: frames and their hierarchical organization. Researchers of the RFA study the “anatomy” of a conversation, or its meaningful structure (Keeney, 1990; Rambo et al., 1993). They observe and capture detailed nuances - distinctions and their organization into frames, or higher levels of discourse, referred to by RFA as “galleries”, “wings”, and “museums” (Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney, 1990). These somewhat unusual terms refer to a hierarchy of frames using the metaphor of a visit to a museum. Examining individual frames can be likened to viewing individual paintings arranged in galleries, which are part of larger units—the museum’s wings—and everything is part of the museum as a whole. The simplest way of doing semantic analysis is to capture conversation themes (they often form frames in conversation) and organize similar themes into higher levels of discourse. It is important not to handle frames as fixed units but to track the changes and re-entries of frames throughout the whole conversation.

The key principle of this analysis phase is to stay as close as possible to the original data, for example by consistently using the language of the observed conversation to name frames (Keeney, 1990; Keeney et al., 2015), avoiding generalized interpretations or revised terminology whenever possible. However, when naming galleries, or other higher discourse levels, as this phase involves a certain level of generalization and thematic grouping of related frames, the aforementioned strict rule is not applicable. This issue might have directed the authors of the RFA towards preferring visualizations of individual frames, without illustrating the galleries or other general meta-frames in their later works (Keeney et al., 2015). Conversely, creating galleries, wings, and museums in semantic analysis makes the “map” of the session easier to understand. We can also point out that even in their latest book, the authors of RFA use graphics of meta-frames, which include frames (Keeney et al., 2015, p. 187, 235, 261).

Sequential Analysis

The following sequential level of analysis focuses on the gradual development of interactional frames over time. In other words, it observes how these frames follow one another chronologically (Chenail & Duffy, 2011). As previously stated, the meaning of a frame is defined through its relationship with other frames– those that preceded it and those that will follow (Chenail, 1995; Keeney & Keeney, 2012a). Closely related to the previous one, this level of analysis examines the transitions between frames, noting how some frames function as “openers” or “closers” to others (Chenail, 1995; Keeney, 1990). The sequential analysis also highlights the recursive (circular) relationships between frames. This is evident, for instance, when some frames recur in new contexts and potentially influence and change the relationships between different frames or contexts within the broader context hierarchy (Keeney et al., 2015).

Pragmatic Analysis

The pragmatic level of analysis focuses on the realm of “social action” or the “function of language” (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Lester et al., 2018; Wiggins, 2017). It examines how participants in a therapeutic conversation contribute to changing frames. As we previously mentioned, RFA utilizes Field’s “three-act play structure”, which is suitable for scoring any creative activity, including therapeutic conversations (Keeney, 2009; Keeney et al., 2015). The three-act play structure, in the context of therapeutic conversations, allows us to recognize any shift from the original impoverished frame (Act I), through the emergence of new possibilities (Act II), towards the reinforcement and cementing of change into a resourceful experience (Act III). This level of analysis also identifies how changes occur between individual acts, which conversation participants contributed to the change, and the methods they used to do so.

Consensual Analysis

While the authors of the RFA method do not directly mention consensual analysis, it is optimal to implement the use of RFA in research teams (Chenail, 1995; Peng, 2014). The goal is to foster the development of a shared understanding of the studied conversations through mutual exchanges among various team members, referred to as “data sessions” (Hill, 2011; Wiggins, 2017). This is what is known as a consensual level of analysis which introduces new enriching insights and facilitates the exchange of various perspectives, leading to a newer and more complex understanding of the subject matter. This aligns with the epistemological principles of social constructivist theories that are significant to RFA, and significantly, enhances the “trustworthiness” or “validity” of the study (Elliott et al., 1999; Hill, 2011).

All the levels of analysis mentioned above, possibly except the consensual level, align with the primary focal points of sequential analysis in discursive psychology. These are represented by the queries “what,” “when,” and “how” (Wiggins, 2017). Throughout the RFA process, the researcher continually transitions among them.

Presentation of Outcomes and the Visualization Forms of the RFA

In the RFA outcome presentation, the researchers emphasize visualizing the structure of the therapeutic conversation. They pay particular attention to its performative aspects, the circularity in frame constructions and reconstructions, and the moments of creative development and change. Various visualization forms of the RFA correspond to these aims. It could be a simple “chain” of linked frames, aligning frames into meta-frames (referred to as “galleries”, “wings”, etc.), or positioning one frame inside another and exchanging their inside/outside places in the scheme as necessary (for examples, see Cotton, 2010; Chenail, & Duffy, 2011; Keeney, 1990; Keeney et al., 2015; Peng, 2014). A unified presentation system does not exist; therefore, researchers using the RFA are encouraged to create new ways of presenting their results, aligning with the focus of their analysis and research needs (Keeney et al., 2015).

At this juncture, we wish to unveil the form of the RFA presentation that we utilize. This presentation is Figure 1 especially adept at documenting the evolving dynamics of a therapeutic conversation, which is important for change process research. This visualization encapsulates the conversation discourse’s oscillation between individual acts within a “three-act structure” (Keeney et al., 2015).

As a case example for the RFA map, we use the session conducted by Insoo Kim Berg, the co-founder of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT). In this session, the therapist works with Carl, a 17-year-old who attempted suicide the previous night. Figure 2 displays a detailed map of the first part of the session, which spans from its onset (time in video: 5:31) to utterance number 128 (time in video: 17:33).³

The first column on the left displays the utterance number from the transcript, and it can also include time in the recording for easier searching and enhanced tracking of the session’s duration. In a typical research report, the whole transcript would be accessible for the readers to examine how the researcher constructs individual frames and galleries. Full transcript is not included here due to space limitations, only a brief example is presented (see below). The individual frames and galleries are then depicted in the three columns marked with individual acts. In an RFA map, frames can be listed separately or grouped into more generalized galleries. This example includes both individual frames and their organization into galleries.

The RFA map illustrates how discourse fluctuated between acts over time. As demonstrated by the scheme, changes in discursive performance do not follow a simple, straightforward linear process. In contrast, there are numerous reversals and progressions throughout the session (refer to galleries 4 and 5; also immediately after utterance 128, where the excerpt concludes, the conversation reverted to Act II, taking roughly ten additional minutes to return back to Act III).

This scheme can be executed using a straightforward table function available in nearly every text editor. The use of arrows between frames, ideally color-coded, is also feasible. Frames are displayed in bounded cells, and absent table rows provide the opportunity to insert notes about the shifts between frames. This method of visualizing RFA has a drawback as it does not accurately represent the circular nature of the change process. We attempt to counteract this drawback by numbering the individual frames and noting the frame number in brackets when a frame re-enters into a new one. Particularly significant markers of changes in discourse are when formerly impoverished frames re-enter into resourceful ones (see 8.1., 9.1., 9.2.).

This RFA map enables a detailed examination of the evolution and unfolding of a conversation over time, within the context of a “three-act structure” (from Act I to Act III and vice versa). An analysis of discursive transitions between acts demonstrates that both - the therapist and client - initiated these shifts in both directions. However, the therapist initiated the shifts from Act I to Act II or from Act II to Act III significantly more frequently than the client. Deeper investigation shows that therapist primarily used questions or empathic utterances to facilitate these transitions. Conversely, the main initiator of shifts in the reverse direction, from Act III to Act II or from Act II to Act I, was typically (though not exclusively) the client when providing problem saturated narratives. Following example from the transcript of the session shows the way of distinguishing frames and transitions between them.

Example (de Shazer et al., 2007, pp. 113–115).

37) CARL: (tears in his eyes) Until I held back my head and said my last prayers or whatever. And then I just started cutting; and you can see right here (shows a neck to therapist).

38)INSOO: Yes. Yeah. Yes, I can see that, yes.

39)CARL:.. and I’m just lucky to be alive today. You know, to speak about this because had I not known there was a sharper knife next to it, but I went for that knife ’cause it was the biggest.

40)INSOO: Yeah.

41)CARL: So, I thought I would have done more damage or something.

42)INSOO: Right.

43)CARL: So I just, I don’t know; I thank God every day, you know. (pause)

44)INSOO: So, what helped? What helped so it didn’t go through? (points to her neck)

45)CARL: It’s, I mean, I don’t know. I mean, when I was—the knife wasn’t—it wasn’t that sharp, it was like a butter knife or something.

46)INSOO: Yeah. (looks surprised)

47)CARL: It was just, you know, and so I made it to where it could cut harder, so I used force actually.

48)INSOO: Yeah.

49)CARL: So. (pause)

50)INSOO: And you’re saying this is not the first time. It has happened other times as well.

51)CARL: It’s happened other times, but this is the worst.

52)INSOO: This is the worst it’s been.

53)CARL: Yeah. Other times it’s been like, burn myself with an iron or something, like right here.

54)INSOO: Yeah. Wow.

55)CARL:.. or something like that.

56)INSOO: Yeah.

57)CARL: I mean, I would get all kind of thoughts in my head...

58)INSOO: Yeah.

59)CARL:.. that I, you know, I just pray to God that I wouldn’t think of them anymore. They just, you know, they just come around whenever, you know, I’m feeling depressed or something, you know, suicidal, you know.

60)INSOO: Okay. So, how did you manage to get to school today?

61)CARL: Well, that’s a long story, too.

62)INSOO: What a night.. I mean it was a terrible night you had.

63)CARL: Way terrible night.

64)INSOO: How did you show up in school on time?

65)CARL: Well, it’s kind of great actually, ’cause while this whole conflict happened, I was at my aunt’s house...

66)INSOO: Yeah.

67)CARL:.. and they wanted me to stay the night. They said, you need to rest or whatever.

68)INSOO: Yes.

69)CARL: I said no, I want to go back home so I can get up and go to school in the morning.

70)INSOO: Oh my goodness.

71)CARL: ’Cause I haven’t missed a day in school yet. At least—well, two days, but those were counted you know. as, you know, I was here.

72)INSOO: Yeah.

73)CARL: As I would go to the doctor or something.

74)INSOO: Yeah.

75)CARL: But I’ve been on a perfect attendance, you know, roll twice already.

76)INSOO: But some terrible night like last night, you still showed up in school.

77)CARL: Yeah.

78)INSOO: And you were helpful to me; you’re trying to be helpful to me today.. this morning. And you even participated in the group with a large group of people.

79)CARL: Large. (smiles)

80)INSOO: A very large group of people. You are very outgoing, very bright, very articulate. I was just absolutely astounded when I saw.. what I heard this morning and now, ’cause I didn’t get a chance to talk to you because we were so busy. And you were just able to sort of set that aside.

81)CARL: Right.

The excerpt begins in frame 3.7, where the client describes the horrific story of last night’s suicide attempt. The therapist (Insoo) offers to move to Act II with a question focused on what helped Carl not to hurt himself (utterance 44). This invitation opens up a new gallery (4) that could potentially open a pathway to the client’s resources. However, Carl describes that the knife was not sharp enough (utterances 45 and 47), to which the therapist responds with validation, but at the same time, some surprise is evident. After a short pause, Insoo follows up with a very uncharacteristic focus on the occurrence of the problem in the past, which can be seen as a step back to Act I. Insoo herself comments on this step as an informal assessment of suicide risk (de Shazer et al., 2007, p. 114). In any case, this is a move from Act II to Act I initiated by the therapist, which is rare in this session. The new invitation to Act II comes again from the therapist in utterance 60, when she focuses on how Carl got to school after such a difficult night. Later in the session (especially in frame 8.1), school emerges as a key resource, providing Carl with motivation and support in challenging situations. This resource is further engaged or “activated” during the conversation (in frame 14.2, not included in the excerpt of the RFA map in Fig. 2 and located in Act III, Carl describes the school as a ‘second home’ and, together with other resources like coping strategies (gallery 18), recognition of warning signs (gallery 17) or a new view of himself (gallery 20) forms an interconnected set of elements significant for therapeutic change).

Additional Methods of Analysis

The RFA itself provides a useful “map” or “score” of a therapeutic conversation, allowing an in-depth view of the entire conversational process (Keeney et al., 2015). However, depending on the research project’s objectives, it can be enriched with other analytical tools and procedures, especially various types of conversation analyses (Bavelas, 2012; De Jong et al., 2020; Fitzgerald, 2013; Korman et al., 2013). These methods are typically time-consuming and demanding, so selecting the most relevant part of the session for examination is crucial. The research question essentially drives this decision. If our goal is to analyze moments of change in discourse, we should probably focus on the sequences encompassing all three acts in sequence (preferably without any backs). In the case presented, we would select moments of discursive shift from gallery 5 to gallery 8 (which covers all three acts), specifically analyzing the shift from gallery 5 to 6 and from gallery 7 to 8. From this perspective, RFA functions as an effective sampling strategy, and the RFA map indicates where to direct detailed attention.

Another widely used method of analysis closely related to conversation analysis is Keeney’s “framework analysis” (Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney, 1990). This method incorporates a potentially complex system for analyzing and transcribing the relationships between various frameworks and their changes over time. The Discursive Action Model (DAM), well-known in discourse psychology (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Lester et al., 2018; Wiggins, 2017), offers another suitable analysis method. The DAM allows researchers to concentrate on three levels: (a) action, (b) fact and interest, and (c) accountability. Delving into discursive devices (Wiggins, 2017) may prove an interesting additional element to RFA analysis. In the future, it may be possible to observe discursive changes between acts using AI-based automated systems (Imel et al., 2015; Smink et al., 2019).

Quality Management of the Research

Research utilizing the RFA method should invariably encompass quality management. Numerous guidelines that support the monitoring of qualitative research quality in general are already in place (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Silverman, 2004). Also, guidelines particularly suitable for the management of the quality of discursive analyses are available (Avdi & Georgaca, 2007; Lester et al., 2018; Tseliou, 2013). An intricate analysis of individual quality criteria exceeds the scope of this article. Nevertheless, we can briefly summarize some aspects that are relevant for RFAs in terms of research quality care:

• The naming of frames adheres to the language used as much as possible.
• Emphasis is placed on performance rather than interpretation (e.g., what a passage says about a client or therapist).
• Transformations of frames are tracked, and rediscovering themes from the past in new contexts (recursivity) is highlighted.
• Transparent and ethical handling of data.
• Evidence of results based on data (transcripts).
• Involvement of multiple perspectives, possibly a consensual approach.
• Making visible the progression of the conversation towards resources using a three-act structure.
• Illustrative presentation of results.
• Formulation of results taking into account the limitations of the chosen research method.

Final Thoughts

RFA is a research method that enables the visualization of conversational processes, fostering a deeper understanding of them. Identifying influential factors within these processes can benefit all participants in therapeutic dialogues, as it can help enhance the sessions’ relevance to clients. The developers of RFA assert that using this approach could help enhance the “artistic” or “performative” aspect of these helping conversations (Keeney et al., 2012). It provides immediate feedback on the in-session performance of the therapist, because it makes it obvious if the discourse progression took place or the session was stuck. Concurrently, they note that this type of research is an art in itself, suggesting that the two are intertwined.

The practice of analysis is no different than the live performance it studies, for as it strives to discern and track change, it is also performing the change. RFA asks the researcher to interact creatively with the discourse being examined, inspiring action that creates distinction. This mapping is more than tracing; it is dancing with a past line of action in a way that brings present life to both indicated map and distinguished territory, each bringing forth generative frames for the other. Discerning life in a change-oriented session requires a researcher whose research performance springs to life. We must re‐enter the search for change that client and practitioner first traversed. In this re‐search, we may find our understanding and our way of participating in its construction, changing as well. (Keeney et al., 2012, p. 70).

The circular or recursive link between practice, research, and theory is significant for the entire psychotherapy field, and RFA could make a beneficial contribution to that.