Reflecting team

1. Introduction

Version followed: Tom Andersen's reflecting team / reflecting processes as presented in Andersen 1987 (Family Process 26:415–428), Andersen (ed.) 1991 The Reflecting Team: Dialogues and Dialogues about the Dialogues (Norton; some citations give 1990) and Andersen 1995 "Reflecting processes; acts of informing and forming" (in Friedman, The Reflecting Team in Action). These three texts are not drawn on directly. The procedure below is therefore reconstructed from secondary sources that summarise them, plus Michael White's primary chapter on his own variant; every Andersen-specific detail that is unconfirmed is tagged [uncertain].

What it is. A way of organising a therapeutic conversation so that the people seeking help alternate between talking (about their concern, with an interviewer) and listening (to professionals, the "reflecting team", talk openly among themselves about what they heard), and then talk again about what struck them in that reflection. It grew in Tromsø, northern Norway, from Andersen's discomfort with Milan-style teams that discussed families behind a one-way screen and sent back a single formulation; instead the team and family swapped places so the family heard the team's ideas directly [source: Frontiers 2022; Dallos & Draper Postscripts; White 1995]. The first such session is usually dated to March 1985 [uncertain: date from secondary literature].

It is more a framework than a fixed therapy. Andersen preferred "reflecting processes" to "reflecting team", because a team behind a mirror is only one of many ways to arrange talking and listening; he resisted its reduction to a technique [source: Yahara 2011 abstract]. It is used inside family, couple, individual, network, supervision and training work, and became a core element of Open Dialogue network meetings [source: Frontiers 2022; Guilford TOC]. No licence, certification or fidelity monitoring is required to use it [synthesis: no certifying body found].

How change happens. Hearing several tentative, respectful versions of one's own situation, from the observing (listening) position rather than being addressed, gives people room to pick up what fits and leave what does not; new descriptions that are different but not too different ("appropriately unusual") open new possibilities for meaning and action [source: Frontiers 2022; Losey & Norman 2016; JMFT 2018 abstract]. Moving clients from being observed to observing supports a reflective stance and co-constructed meaning [source: Frontiers 2022]. Andersen also noticed that professionals talking in the family's presence naturally use everyday, friendly language instead of detached professional talk [source: Dallos & Draper Postscripts, p. 320].

2. Framework

There are no treatment phases or fixed session numbers in the sources; the structure is the sequence within a meeting, repeated as often as useful [source: Frontiers 2022; synthesis].

Settings (choose one). [source: Frontiers 2022; Losey & Norman 2016; Turner/AUT; synthesis for D]

• A. Classic: team (often 2–3 colleagues) behind a one-way screen; at the reflection point lights and sound are reversed, or rooms are swapped, so the family and interviewer watch and listen to the team [uncertain: lights-and-sound mechanics from secondary literature].
• B. Same room: reflectors sit in the room, a little apart, and turn to each other when reflecting (Bacigalupe 2002, cited in Frontiers 2022).
• C. No team: one therapist creates talking/listening positions among family members, or with one co-worker present [uncertain: described in Andersen 1991/1995].
• D. Video or online: reflectors on camera, interviewer and family switch the view [synthesis].

Sequence of one meeting.

Number and spacing of meetings. Not specified in the sources. Andersen is commonly reported to let the family decide whether and when to meet again, often at longer intervals than weekly [uncertain]. A practicum version runs a ~100-minute block: 30 min team pre-session, 30 min session, 15 min intersession, 15 min intervention, 10 min post-session (Losey & Norman 2016, p. 11) — note that the intervention-planning element is that programme's adaptation, closer to Milan practice than to Andersen [synthesis].

3. Guiding principles

[source per bullet; uncertain where marked]

• Talk in the clients' presence, not about them in their absence. Practical meaning: no hidden team discussion; whatever the team thinks, the family can hear [source: Frontiers 2022; Dallos & Draper Postscripts].
• Both/and, not either/or. Offer several views, including views that differ between and within reflectors; do not settle on one formulation [source: Frontiers 2022 (Andersen 1987); Losey & Norman 2016].
• Appropriately unusual. Questions and reflections should be new enough to be interesting but not so unusual they make people close down [source: Losey & Norman 2016 (Andersen 1987, p. 6); JMFT 2018 abstract]. Practical meaning: watch how people receive what you say and slow or soften when they tense [uncertain: bodily cues as indicator, attributed to Andersen in the literature].
• Tentativeness. Speak with "maybe", "I wonder", "I'm not sure, but"; you are offering, not telling [source: Losey & Norman 2016, p. 6; Research in Practice Tool 9].
• Stay with what was said and seen here. Reflect on what was actually in this conversation, not on file information or outside theory [source: Losey & Norman 2016, p. 6; uncertain: Andersen's own wording].
• Respect and no blame. Reflections are positive, respectful, sensitive, imaginative; no negative connotation or judgement of anyone [source: Turner/AUT, p. 89 citing Andersen 1987; Losey & Norman 2016].
• Non-directive. No advice, prescriptions or strategic interventions in the reflection [source: Losey & Norman 2016, p. 6]. Practical meaning: if you find yourself recommending, turn it into a question or drop it.
• The listeners are free. Clients may take up, ignore or reject any reflection; the family decides what fits and chooses the next direction [source: Frontiers 2022]. Andersen's phrase: "you can borrow my eyes, but you must not take them away from me" (Andersen 1995, quoted in Dallos & Draper Postscripts, p. 320).
• Everyday language. No jargon; speak as you would with the family present, because they are [source: Dallos & Draper Postscripts, p. 320; Losey & Norman 2016].
• Inner and outer dialogue. Listening gives each person room for their own inner talk; talking with others is outer talk; the format deliberately alternates them [source: JMFT 2018 abstract names this element; uncertain: detail of Andersen's account].
• Ethics of dialogical relating / way of being in relationship. The therapist's relational stance, not the setting, makes it reflecting [source: JMFT 2018 abstract; Yahara 2011 abstract].
• Don't credit one inventor or one technique. Andersen asked not to be named as sole developer; keep the format flexible [source: Dallos & Draper Postscripts, p. 319; Yahara 2011 abstract].

4. Intervention inventory

The inventory below covers the core reflecting-team moves (4.1–4.9), team-less reflecting processes (4.10–4.11), and the published adaptations most clinicians meet (4.12–4.14). All example language is illustrative unless quoted and cited.

4.1 Preparing and consenting the family to the format

• Purpose / when: Before the first reflecting meeting, or whenever a new person joins. Clients who do not understand why strangers are watching feel examined rather than helped [source: Losey & Norman 2016, pp. 9–11; synthesis].
• Steps: (1) Explain who the reflectors are, where they will sit, whether there is a screen or recording. (2) Describe the sequence: we talk, you listen to them talk, then you say what struck you. (3) Make clear they may decline the team at any point, or hear only part of it. (4) Ask for questions after each element, and ask what might feel most unusual. (5) Optionally let them meet the team briefly first (Cohen et al. 1998, cited in Losey & Norman 2016, pp. 11–12). (6) Record consent for observation and any recording per local rules [synthesis].
• Example language (illustrative): "Two colleagues will listen while we talk. At some point I'll ask if you'd like to hear them talk with each other about what they heard. You can say no, and you don't have to agree with anything they say." / "What do you think will feel most unusual about this?" (question wording after Losey & Norman 2016, p. 10).
• Watch for: Hesitation, a member looking to another before agreeing, a child who has not been asked. Working when each person has said yes in their own words.

4.2 Opening the conversation: whose idea, and how to use the meeting

• Purpose / when: First minutes of a meeting; sets the family as owners of the agenda.
• Steps: (1) Ask about the history of the idea to come: who first thought of it, who agreed, who was less sure. (2) Ask how they would like to use this meeting and who would like to talk about what. (3) Ask whether anyone would prefer not to talk about something here. (4) Follow their answer rather than a referral agenda. [uncertain: these opening questions are widely attributed to Andersen 1991/1995, not confirmed]
• Example language (illustrative): "Whose idea was it to come today? … And when you heard that idea, what did you think?" / "How would you like us to use this time?" / "Is there anything you'd rather we didn't talk about today?"
• Watch for: Referrer-driven attendance (the idea belonged to school or court) — explore that rather than skip it [synthesis]. Working when the family names its own topic.

4.3 The interviewer's listening and talking

• Purpose / when: Throughout step 1 and step 3. The interviewer's way of being is what makes the conversation reflecting [source: JMFT 2018 abstract; Yahara 2011 abstract].
• Steps: (1) Go at the speaker's pace; leave pauses so inner talk can happen. (2) Stay close to the words people use; when a word seems charged or important, ask what it means to them rather than translating it into your terms. (3) Ask one question at a time; let the person finish. (4) Notice how a question lands (posture, breathing, hesitation); if someone tightens, slow down or ask whether the question was all right [uncertain: attention to words and bodily response as Andersen's practice, from the literature].
• Example language (illustrative): "You used the word 'hopeless' — what does that word hold for you?" / "Was that a fair question to ask, or did it come too soon?"
• Watch for: You doing most of the talking; paraphrasing that replaces their words. Working when people elaborate in their own language.

4.4 Calibrating questions to be "appropriately unusual"

• Purpose / when: Choosing each question or reflection, especially when the conversation is going in circles (too usual) or people are withdrawing (too unusual) [source: Losey & Norman 2016, p. 6; JMFT 2018 abstract].
• Steps: (1) If the talk repeats familiar accounts, add a small difference: a new time frame, another person's view, an exception. (2) If people look puzzled, defensive or silent, step back to something closer to their own description. (3) Check out loud. [synthesis: operationalisation of the principle]
• Example language (illustrative): "If your grandmother had been listening just now, what might she have noticed?" (small difference) / "Let's go back to what you were saying about the mornings." (stepping back)
• Watch for: Cleverness for its own sake. Working when people take up the question with some interest and energy.

4.5 The team's listening during the interview

• Purpose / when: Step 1. Reflectors prepare grounded, diverse reflections.
• Steps: (1) Listen without consulting each other, so that several independent perspectives form [uncertain: reported Andersen guideline, not confirmed]. (2) Note words, moments, images and your own inner responses, including "inner sensations or images" the talk evokes [source: Frontiers 2022]. (3) Note what was not said or not observed as well as what was [source: Losey & Norman 2016, p. 6]. (4) In practicum versions, a team may phone or message the interviewer; Andersen's version did not route ideas through the interviewer [source: Losey & Norman 2016, p. 12; Frontiers 2022].
• Watch for: Team members forming a shared hypothesis before the reflection (loses multiplicity).

4.6 Switching positions

• Purpose / when: The transition from step 1 to step 2 and back. A clear switch protects the listening position.
• Steps: (1) Interviewer asks the family whether they would like to hear the team now [uncertain: permission step at this point]. (2) Classic setup: lights and sound reversed or rooms swapped [uncertain]; same-room setup: reflectors turn their chairs towards each other, interviewer and family turn to listen [source: Frontiers 2022]. (3) Interviewer tells the family they may listen or not, and that they will be asked afterwards what, if anything, struck them. (4) After reflection, positions are switched back explicitly.
• Example language (illustrative): "Would you like to hear what my colleagues have been thinking? You can just listen, or not listen — afterwards I'll ask you what caught your attention."
• Watch for: Family members trying to join the team's talk; gently hold the positions and promise them the next turn [synthesis].

4.7 The reflecting conversation (the team's talk)

• Purpose / when: Step 2; to offer multiple tentative views from which the family can choose.
• Steps: (1) Reflectors talk to each other, not to the family; they do not address or look at family members, which frees the family to listen or not [source: Losey & Norman 2016, p. 2 & p. 7; uncertain: no-eye-contact rule]. (2) Each comment starts from something actually said or seen in this meeting. (3) Frame tentatively (maybe, I wonder, I'm not sure). (4) Offer observations, curiosities and questions, not restatements; build on the other reflector, adding a different angle (both/and). (5) Positively connote or appreciate; never blame; when challenging a negative self-view, do it through positive connotation [source: Losey & Norman 2016, pp. 6–7; Turner/AUT]. (6) No advice, no interventions, no jargon. (7) Keep it brief, typically 5–10 minutes, two or three themes [source: Losey & Norman 2016, pp. 5–6]. (8) Close by handing back.
• Example language (illustrative): R1: "I was struck when Ana said the house 'goes quiet' after the arguments. I wondered what the quiet is like for each of them." R2: "I heard it a bit differently — maybe the quiet is also a kind of truce, a way of protecting each other. I'm not sure." R1: "And I wonder whether the younger ones have their own word for it."
• Watch for: Reflectors agreeing with each other too quickly; one reflector lecturing; any sentence that would sound like a verdict to the family. Working when the family later quotes or argues with a specific reflection.

4.8 The family's reflection on the reflection

• Purpose / when: Step 3; returns authority to the family and lets them choose direction [source: Frontiers 2022].
• Steps: (1) Ask each person, in an open way, what caught their attention, what they thought while listening, or what they disagreed with. (2) Accept "nothing" without pressing. (3) Follow what they pick up; do not summarise or endorse the team's best idea. (4) Optionally offer another round of reflection later in the meeting.
• Example language (illustrative): "Was there anything in what they said that you'd like to comment on?" / "Anything you'd want to correct?" / "Which of those thoughts, if any, is worth us talking more about?"
• Watch for: Interviewer steering back to the team's 'right' view. Working when the family uses the reflection to say something new.

4.9 Closing the meeting

• Purpose / when: End of each meeting.
• Steps: (1) Ask how the meeting was for them and what was most and least useful. (2) Ask whether they want to meet again, with whom present, and when [uncertain: Andersen's practice of letting families decide timing, not confirmed]. (3) Ask whether they want the team again. (4) No end-of-session prescription or homework (that would be Milan-style) [source: Frontiers 2022 contrast with Milan; synthesis].
• Example language (illustrative): "Should we meet again? If so, who should come, and how soon would be sensible?"
• Watch for: Family deferring to you on timing; give them options rather than deciding.

4.10 Reflecting processes without a team (one therapist)

• Purpose / when: Most routine settings, where no team exists. Andersen described reflecting as arrangeable in many ways beyond a team [source: Yahara 2011 abstract]; the specific team-less arrangements below are reported from Andersen 1991/1995 [uncertain].
• Steps: (1) Family or couple: talk with one person while the others are explicitly placed in a listening position. (2) Then ask the listeners what they thought while listening, and ask the first speaker what struck them in that. (3) Individual work: invite the client to sit back and listen while you think aloud tentatively about what you heard (several possibilities, not one), then ask what struck them; or return later in the session to talk about the earlier talk. (4) Keep the same rules as 4.7: grounded, tentative, non-blaming, brief.
• Example language (illustrative): "I'd like to talk with your dad for a few minutes. Could you two just listen, and afterwards tell me what went through your minds?" / "Can I think out loud for a minute about what you've said? You can just listen, and then tell me if any of it fits."
• Watch for: Listeners interrupting (hold positions kindly); therapist's 'thinking aloud' becoming interpretation. Working when listeners speak more freely afterwards than they did when addressed.

4.11 Professionals reflecting in front of the client (co-worker or network meeting)

• Purpose / when: Two clinicians present (co-therapy, home visits, Open Dialogue network meetings with family, network and professionals). Open Dialogue adopted reflecting conversations as a core component [source: Frontiers 2022; Guilford TOC (Seikkula et al. 1995 chapter)].
• Steps: (1) At a suitable point, ask the family whether the professionals may talk with each other for a moment about what they have heard. (2) Turn towards each other; talk tentatively about what you heard, including differences between your views and your uncertainties, so the family can see "doubt and ambiguity" in the team [source: Frontiers 2022, citing Haley 2002]. (3) Turn back and ask the family what they made of it. (4) Do not make professional decisions privately; keep planning talk in the room [source: Frontiers 2022; synthesis].
• Example language (illustrative): "Could Mira and I talk together for a moment about what we've heard? … I've been wondering whether the sleeplessness started before or after the move. — I'm not sure; I was more struck by how much the brothers keep checking on him."
• Watch for: Professionals talking in jargon or reaching hidden agreement. Working when the family corrects or extends what the professionals said (the study's title phrase: "always opening and never closing") [source: Frontiers 2022].

4.12 Definitional ceremony / outsider-witness reflecting (Michael White's variant)

• Purpose / when: Narrative therapy adaptation of Andersen's team, to acknowledge and authenticate preferred stories; White credits Andersen for originating reflecting teamwork [source: White 1995]. Use when the aim is to thicken emerging preferred identity claims.
• Steps (four interviews): (1) Interviewer talks with the people seeking consultation; team listens as audience. (2) Team members interview each other while the people listen, moving through: joining (introducing themselves, acknowledging circumstances); mystery (curiosity about exceptions or unique outcomes as puzzles only the family can solve, marked as speculative until confirmed); alternative landscapes (landscape-of-action and landscape-of-consciousness questions, zigzagging between them); deconstruction (each member situates comments in their own experience, interests and intentions). (3) Interviewer asks the people about their responses to the first two interviews; team listens. (4) Everyone meets to deconstruct the therapy itself: team interviews the interviewer about their choices, transparency is the guide, and the people have the last word, including on the format [source: White 1995].
• Avoid (White): strategising, problem-solving, teaching, advice; theorising about the 'truth' of problems; pointing out positives or applause-like superlatives (patronising); indicative certainty (use the subjunctive); moral stories, homilies or bare-it-all self-disclosure [source: White 1995]. Note the contrast with positive-connotation guidance in some Andersen-derived training texts (4.7) [uncertain: versions differ].
• Example language (illustrative): "When Sam said he walked away from the fight, I found myself wondering what made that possible for him." / "I'm asking this partly because of my own history with a brother I didn't talk to for years." (embodying a comment)
• Watch for: Team members drifting into generic praise; assign one member to monitor and redirect the format [source: White 1995].

4.13 Reflecting team in supervision and training

• Purpose / when: Live supervision, practicum and team training (Young et al. 1989; Prest, Darden & Keller 1990 "fly on the wall"; Biever & Gardner 1995; Castles 2011) [source: Turner/AUT; Frontiers 2022].
• Steps (practicum format, Losey & Norman 2016): (1) 30-min pre-session: team conceptualises the case with directed reflection prompts (talk to each other, pose a question, state a curiosity); counsellor notes an opening summary; the client may join the end to meet the team. (2) 30-min session with in-room reflectors; ~5-min reflection mid-session. (3) 15-min intersession. (4) 15-min return; client chooses one idea to act on. (5) 10-min post-session with client feedback and instructor validation of responses [source: Losey & Norman 2016, pp. 7, 11–13]. Psychodrama variant: fishbowl team drawn from the group, no screen, statements turned into questions, no speculation about the 'truth' of what was presented (Williams 1992, in Turner/AUT, pp. 89–90).
• Example language (illustrative): Supervisor-reflector: "I noticed the counsellor slowed right down when the client mentioned her mother, and I wondered what that slowing made possible."
• Watch for: Evaluation of the trainee disguised as reflection; keep it tentative and non-judgemental [synthesis].

4.14 Systemic Reflective Space (practitioner group reflection)

• Purpose / when: A ~50-minute peer-supervision format for a practitioner's case dilemma, adapted from Andersen's reflecting team [source: Research in Practice Tool 9].
• Steps: (1) ~15 min: presenter tells the story in the circle from their own, the service user's and others' viewpoints; members listen emotionally (no interruption, open questions, reflecting content and feeling). (2) ~15 min: presenter sits outside the circle; group explores without questioning the presenter, sits with uncertainty, notes knowns, unknowns and own assumptions, drafts curious questions (not asked aloud). (3) ~10 min: presenter returns and comments on what caught their attention while the group listens silently. (4) ~10 min: whole-group discussion of why perspectives emerged or did not, wellbeing check, review of usefulness [source: Research in Practice Tool 9].
• Example language (illustrative): Group member: "What else could it be?" (prompt from Tool 9) / Presenter: "The first thing I noticed from your discussion was…" (Tool 9 prompt).
• Watch for: Group solving rather than exploring; members over-relying on their own similar cases (Tool 9 asks how this differs).

5. Handling problems

The sources say little about difficulties; most guidance below is marked [synthesis].

• Family declines the team or the observation. Respect it; continue as an ordinary conversation or use a team-less arrangement (4.10). Offer the team again later, perhaps in the room rather than behind glass, or let them meet the reflectors first [source: Losey & Norman 2016 (consent, meeting the team); synthesis].
• Client feels watched or exposed. Name the arrangement openly; move reflectors into the room; reduce team size to two; shorten reflections; ask afterwards how being listened to felt [synthesis].
• Overwhelm / too much input. Keep reflections to 5–10 minutes and two or three themes; longer discussions can overload clients [source: Losey & Norman 2016, pp. 5–6]. If a client looks flooded, pause the reflection and check in [synthesis].
• 'Too unusual': client withdraws, disagrees sharply or seems hurt after a reflection. Treat it as information that the difference was too large; acknowledge, invite correction, return to their own words. Repair: "It sounds like something we said didn't fit, or hurt. Can you tell us?" (illustrative) [source: principle from Losey & Norman 2016 / JMFT 2018 abstract; synthesis for repair steps].
• 'Too usual': stuck, repetitive conversation. Bring in a reflection (that was the original trigger: an impasse) or a small new angle (4.4) [source: Turner/AUT; synthesis].
• Family ignores the reflections. Not a failure: listeners are free to take nothing. Ask lightly once; do not push the team's ideas [source: Frontiers 2022 (family chooses direction); synthesis].
• Reflectors break the rules (advice, diagnosis, blame, jargon, long monologue). Brief the team beforehand with explicit guidelines (Losey & Norman Table 1 is a usable model); in the moment, the next reflector can reframe as a question; debrief afterwards; White suggests a team member monitor the format [source: Losey & Norman 2016; White 1995].
• Team members reach one shared hypothesis. Ask each to listen independently and to voice at least one differing view [synthesis; uncertain: independent-listening guideline].
• Self-disclosure that centres the reflector. Keep it brief and tied to the client's account; disclose only to support or normalise [source: Losey & Norman 2016, p. 9]; avoid moral stories [source: White 1995].
• Conflict, violence or child-protection concerns. Reflecting tentativeness does not replace clear statements about safety. Say safety concerns plainly in the interviewer position, follow local safeguarding duties, and do not let reflections ambiguously normalise harm [synthesis]. A chapter on reflecting with families "stuck in violence and child abuse" exists (Kjellberg et al. 1995) [uncertain].
• Suicide or self-harm risk emerges. Step out of the reflecting format, complete a standard risk assessment and safety plan with the person, then decide whether to return to the format [synthesis].
• Children present. Ask them directly whether they want to listen; reflectors can use simpler language and include a reflection about each child's view; allow drawing or play while listening [synthesis].
• Psychosis or severe crisis. In Open Dialogue network meetings reflecting conversations are part of routine work; keep language plain and transparent, and decisions in the room [source: Frontiers 2022; Guilford TOC; synthesis for detail].
• Interpreters, deafness, intellectual disability. Reflecting has been used with deaf clients and people with intellectual disabilities [source: Frontiers 2022, citing other studies]; slow the pace, shorten each reflection, check comprehension, brief interpreters on the listening/talking positions [synthesis].
• Cultural mismatch (hierarchy, shame about being discussed). Ask the family how it would be best for others to talk about their situation; let an elder respond first; consider reflectors of matching background [synthesis].
• Rupture with the interviewer or team. Invite the family's critique of the format (White's fourth interview gives them the last word on structure); change the arrangement accordingly [source: White 1995; synthesis].
• No team available / time pressures. Use 4.10 or 4.11; a managed-care adaptation exists (Friedman, Brecher & Mittelmeier 1995) [uncertain].
• Online sessions. Reflectors switch cameras on only for the reflection; ensure the family can mute themselves and that recording consent is explicit [synthesis].
• Therapist slipping back into expert formulation. Check: would I say this with the family listening? If not, rework it [source: Dallos & Draper Postscripts, p. 320 (language changes in clients' presence); synthesis].

Sources

Sources:

• "Always opening and never closing": How dialogical therapists understand and create reflective conversations in network meetings (Frontiers in Psychology, 2022)
• Turner, reflecting team article, ANZPA / AUT journal (pp. 87–90)
• Losey, B. & Norman, R. Using Reflecting Teams in Counseling Practicum. VISTAS 2016, Article 31 (ACA)
• White, M. (1995) Reflecting teamwork as definitional ceremony. In Re-Authoring Lives (Dulwich Centre)
• Dallos & Draper, An Introduction to Family Therapy: Postscripts (Open University Press)
• Research in Practice (2021) Tool 9: Group reflection – Systemic Reflective Space
• Guilford Press: The Reflecting Team in Action (Friedman, ed., 1995) – contents
• The legacy of Tom Andersen: The ethics of reflecting processes (JMFT 2018, 44(3):386–392) – abstract
• Yahara, T. (2011) Reconsidering reflecting processes. Japanese Journal of Family Therapy 28(1):70–77 – record/abstract
• Taos Institute: Tom Andersen (in memoriam)
• Avdi & Lerou (2020) chapter page, Springer (reference only)

Further reading (not drawn on):

• Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work. Family Process, 26(4), 415–428.
• Andersen, T. (Ed.) (1991; also cited as 1990). The Reflecting Team: Dialogues and Dialogues about the Dialogues. New York: Norton.
• Andersen, T. (1992). Reflections on reflecting with families. In S. McNamee & K. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as Social Construction. London: Sage.
• Andersen, T. (1995). Reflecting processes; acts of informing and forming. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The Reflecting Team in Action. New York: Guilford.
• Lax, W. (1995). Offering reflections: Some theoretical and practical considerations. In Friedman (Ed.), 1995.
• Seikkula, J. et al. (1995). Treating psychosis by means of open dialogue. In Friedman (Ed.), 1995.
• Kjellberg, E. et al. (1995). Using the reflecting process with families stuck in violence and child abuse. In Friedman (Ed.), 1995.
• Young, J. et al. (1989). The reflecting team process in training. ANZJFT, 10, 69–74; Prest, L., Darden, E., & Keller, J. (1990). "The fly on the wall": Reflecting team supervision. JMFT, 16, 265–273.