The Open Dialogue approach promotes collaboration with clients and families in decisions about the direction of therapy. This creates potential problems for Open Dialogue therapists who seek collaboration but also have responsibility for managing the session. Using conversation analysis, we examined 14 hours of video recordings of Open Dialogue sessions, and specifically how therapists proposed the transition to a reflecting conversation. We found that, when making proposals to reflect, therapists routinely downgrade their deontic authority (i.e., adopt a less powerful, more collaborative position). They did this through framing proposals as interrogatives, providing accounts, and by prefacing their proposals with “I’m wondering”. More heavily downgraded proposals made acceptance less salient, potentially risking transition to the reflection. These findings provide more detail on how theoretical concepts such as “collaboration” and “power” are actually displayed and negotiated in practice and can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes Open Dialogue.

中文翻译：

---

降低公开对话反思提案中的道义权威：对话分析

开放式对话方法促进与来访者和家庭在决定治疗方向时的合作。这给寻求合作但也有责任管理会话的开放式对话治疗师带来了潜在的问题。使用对话分析，我们检查了开放对话会议的 14 小时视频记录，特别是治疗师如何建议过渡到反思对话。我们发现，在提出反思建议时，治疗师通常会降低他们的道义权威（即，采取不那么强大、更具协作性的立场）。他们通过将提案框定为疑问句、提供说明以及在提案前加上“我想知道”来做到这一点。降级程度更高的提案使接受度变得不那么突出，可能会冒着过渡到反思的风险。