Interview with Yasmin Ajmal

April 2001

Introduction

Yasmin Ajmal is an Educational Psychologist who has been applying solution focused brief therapy - and solution focused thinking - in her professional role for a number of years. She has been a member of the Brief Therapy Practice, London for three years and has trained many people in SFBT. She co-wrote (with John Rhodes) Solution Focused Thinking In Schools (Brief Therapy Press, 1995) and more recently has edited (with Ioan Rees) Solutions in Schools (Brief Therapy Press, 2001).

This interview was taped on 15 April 2001, transcribed and edited by me (Rob Cumming) and then checked and amended by Yas.

RC: Thanks for talking Yas. First of all, how did you come to learn SFBT?

YA: John Rhodes, one of my colleagues at Hackney Educational Psychology Service, went on a ten week training course and came back raving about it.

RC: Right - that must have been one of the earliest Brief Therapy Practice courses?

YA: Yes. He must have attended their first or second training. He thought it had an awful lot to offer. We were a fairly new team, in that the team in Hackney increased from about six to twelve EPs. John and I were two of the new ones. I think there was quite an outward-looking, new approach and Denny Grant, the Principal EP, wanted to try out new things. Anyway four or five of us went along and did the two and a half hours / one evening a week for ten weeks introductory course. Then Denny and I and others did a ten-week advanced course. Following this, I was asked to work with the team at the Marlborough Family Service, where they were developing their SFBT ideas, for one day a week, which was amazing. That's how I developed my links to the now Brief Therapy Practice.

RC: - Because they were in that team -

YA: Well it was the BTP people and other people interested in trying out and developing SFBT ideas.

RC: What kind of clients would you see when you worked there?

YA: Anyone who came along. Mostly adults, with adult- related difficulties. And we'd watch behind the screen and supervise each other, which was quite new to me. Sometimes we'd see people on our own, and we'd videotape sessions as well.

RC: What was effective, for you, about SFT when you started out?

YA: It provided a structure for a way of thinking about things which made sense to me. It's very practical, very respectful, and I felt I could use it flexibly in my work as an EP. So, although it was taught as a therapeutic approach with individuals, I could begin to see ways of trying it out and adapting it to all sorts of aspects of the EP's role. Also, I thought it was a very optimistic approach.

RC: OK ... How did you fit SFBT in with psychometrics, assessment, and all those duties of an EP? Because there are people who say that the two philosophies - SFBT and mainstream psychology - argue in a big way, they don't fit together. Plainly a lot of professionals are fitting them together, so I wonder how you found it?

YA: Well, what I did was, I used the SFBT ideas to develop my interest in a broad use of assessments, rather than focusing particularly on figures and statistics.  So for example I was always interested in, say, students' learning styles,  and finding out how they approached tasks and what their cognisance was of what they were doing, so I would be terribly interested in asking students, how did they do that? How did they work that out? Which bits did they like? Which bits did they find easier? What was their method?

RC: So it wouldn't just be what they did, you'd be interested in how -

YA: - They did it. And I found the SFBT questions gave me a way of exploring this in more depth. I think also the emphasis on finding out peoples' views about themselves and what they wanted affected my assessments. Certainly in my reports I expanded the sections on students' own views and the views of parents. The whole notion of taking histories changed for me, to include the histories of things that the parents thought the children had succeeded at, or times when students themselves felt they'd overcome something, what their aspirations were, what parents thought their children's strengths were which might be useful; and if they did have some extra support, how they thought their child could best use that support. So, I expanded all that, and I expanded out the child or young adult's views on what they wanted in terms of support and how they envisaged using it.

RC: So it's a long way from coming in as an expert and getting some kind of objective view...

YA: Yeah. I mean, I did portray myself as an expert in reports as well, you know, "The child needs blah blah blah," at the end. You had to do that. It was part of my role, in terms of accessing specialist provision, but I was keen not to see the reports just as an end in themselves, but as part of an ongoing dialogue. So for example not letting the discussion stop with "This student needs an extra teacher," but exploring for example how that would be used, how would that best fit in to the overall work with this student, and what do you know about this student that makes you think they could make good use of it, and what would be the signs for you that things were actually improving, that this had been a good idea?

RC: So they'd know when the measures were working...

YA: Exactly.

RC: Which is often a little bit elusive...?

YA: Exactly. I think sometimes people's thinking stops with the getting of provision.

RC:  Mmm. Not with whether it works or not.

YA: Or what needs to happen to make it work. If they were going to, say, have an extra teacher, that may be 0.2 of the child's day, so how would that be woven in with the overall planning for this child? I think also what it helped me to do was to widen out my discussions with people. When people said "Yasmin I want you to do an assessment," I used to say, "What is it that you would like me to find out that would be useful to you?" And "How will you make use of that information?"

RC: So you're including the referrer in the process.

YA: Yes. Before I even saw the child I would say, for example, "There's a whole range of things I could do with this child, I've only got 40 minutes, so I want to make sure that what comes out of it is going to be most useful for you."

RC: So it's not just therapy. It's a way of thinking about working with others.

YA: Yes, definitely.

RC: Did that change your role, and the way you worked, and your experience of your work?

YA: Yes. It did. It gave me so much more confidence, because I never did actually see myself as an expert and I felt highly uncomfortable when people used to call on you as an expert and want you to come up with all the answers - which I didn't have. I'd have a jolly good go, and maybe even some of the ideas I suggested were good - I like to think they were - but if they didn't really fit with the situation or that person's style, they weren't useful. When I did the SF training, it gave me a way of drawing on the knowledge that other people had, and by drawing on that, it made anything that we came up with far more likely to be useful, because there was a joint aspect to it, it wasn't just me - 

RC: - You know what they've been doing that works already, you can build that in - 

YA: - Yes, exactly - 

RC: - You know the way they're thinking, so bring it near to what they can do - 

YA:  Mmm, and in meetings, rather than imposing my own agenda, asking, "So what would you like to get out of this meeting?" "What would make this useful for you?" And to go round and get people's views, it fundamentally changed the tone of the meetings.

RC: Because?

YA: Because it involved people in a much more meaningful discussion, and at the end, people had more useful and tangible things to take away. You know I often felt that people think EPs don't actually have very much to offer, and in some senses, that's a fair assessment. I think the role we're set up to do is quite often untenable. But I've felt that people found that using Solution Focus we had something practical to take away from meetings. And, it was very focused so that when you only had a short amount of time it helped make best use of that time. For example, say in a secondary school meeting with Heads of Year, there would be a huge long list of students to discuss and yet the discussion could focus on one student with many examples of the difficulties.  Then after 20 minutes we still would have discussed one student, and they had 20 students on their list. So the SENCO and I looked at different ways the time could be used so that the meeting could be more useful to the Heads of Year. This involved the SENCO and them talking briefly together prior to the meeting, using questions such as, "What would make this a useful discussion about this student? What do we want to take away from this discussion?" So they had already done that pre-thinking and when they came and had their half-hour slot, we could get through 10 students rather than one. I felt this supported the system far better. Otherwise they would go away, having only discussed one student out of twenty, and the others would have to 'go on hold', or things would escalate until the next meeting.

RC: Frustrating all round.

YA: Yes, very much so, very much so. And I think, because I didn't feel I had to provide all the answers, I listened better to people, because while they were talking I wasn't thinking, "Oh my God, I don't know what they're going to ask me in a minute, I've got to think of an idea!" I was just listening to what they said. I think that was better. When I left Hackney, one of my favourite comments from somebody I'd worked with was "We're going to miss your optimism - if ever there was a difficulty, we'd think Oh good, Yasmin's coming in this week and we know we can sit down and have a really good go at sorting it out." And they had a belief, not just in me; they had a belief in themselves too. I thought that was a really lovely comment. It made me feel good.

RC: I should think so!

YA: As a worker I don't think you can underestimate that. When people are just, putting more and more problems on you and your shoulders are getting more and more weighed down, it's very hard, I think. With Solution Focus, I wouldn't become so weighed down with problems, and therefore I was able to be more creative.  

RC: Sounds good!

YA: It was, actually. A very exciting time in my career, when I first found out about SFBT and worked closely with John Rhodes, to start feeding the ideas in to our work.

RC: Do you miss working as an EP, I mean now you have a different role- working individually with clients? Which do you prefer, to put it perhaps over-simply?

YA: I miss having contact with young people. I don't have as much now. Um, and my ideal would be to be able to go and do lots of different projects in schools. I don't miss being an EP particularly, I don't miss doing assessments, I don't miss at all writing up reports, and I don't miss being part of a system which I didn't totally agree with in terms of the way support and resources were allocated.

RC: OK. I know you've been involved in training peer counsellors - that is, students in schools, to be counsellors. How did you get involved in that?

YA: The peer counsellors are part of a huge and extremely well-coordinated anti-bullying project in Acland Burghley secondary school. There are two coordinators (Vavi Hillel and Eliza Smith) who have done some training at the Brief therapy Practice. They have used several different models of therapy in the training for peer counsellors and after feedback from the students decided to go with the Brief Therapy model. Eliza and Vavi found that the SFT training made the most sense to the young counsellors, was the most accessible to them and they could use it most confidently. So, Chris Iveson trained one group, and I was asked if I would be interested in continuing the training. I was always saying "Ooh I really like projects in schools," so they said "All right, you go and try this one." So, that's how I got involved.

RC: And you're still involved?

YA: Yes. I'm on my third training in the same school. It's with new counsellors though interestingly enough some counsellors from previous years come back because they're interested in thinking about it again.

RC: How many hours of training do you deliver before there's a chance that a student can go out and be a peer counsellor?

YA: We do about eight one-and-a-half to two-hour sessions of training, and then usually one or two follow-up sessions. So the training will take place in March - June, then I'll go back in September and do a bit of revision and whatever. And then the counsellors get organised and on-going supervision from Vavi and Eliza.

RC: Right. And they're trained as well -

YA: The co-ordinators are trained in SFBT, and they've also been on a training for supervisors as well.

RC: And, what's their impression of the effect of the peer counsellors - um - they're obviously concerned about bullying - but I guess there will be anything else that -

YA: Yea. Actually, the counselling remit is much wider, because kids go with problems about work, problems about friendships, problems at home, problems with members of staff; the counsellors think it's great, and what is really interesting is to talk to the counsellors themselves. I mean most of them will say that they have benefited personally from training as counsellors - that if they have a difficulty they feel much more confident about dealing with it.

RC: So SFBT looks like an appropriate model to offer.

YA: I think so. Yea. And I tell you, some of these young people use it so creatively! In a way, with a sort of optimism and, um, a courage which I think a lot of adults could learn from. You know, they don't put lots of problems and difficulties in the way, they just have a go.

RC: Sure.

YA: And you know a lot of young people find it easier to talk to other young people rather than talk to adults. I think it's a very interesting way for the counsellors to think. Rather than giving advice straight away, to give the other people a chance to say their views or their ideas, before jumping in. I've seen it used very skilfully and I find it really exciting to see young people - and these are from Year 8 up to Year 12, there's a real mix on the training - I find it really exciting to watch young people use it, watch them develop their thinking, ask questions, and discuss together what's happening, or why that way was a better way of asking a question than this way. It's great!

RC: Sounds great! I understand you're producing a pack to help people do this?

YA: Yea. There's been quite a lot of interest shown not just about the peer counselling but about the anti-bullying project; other schools have been becoming interested in training their peer counsellors. so Vavi, Eliza and I thought well, we've sort of refined what we do for three or four years now, why don't we put it down so people can take it away and use some of the ideas and then develop their own way of doing it - ours isn't the definitive way, but it would give them the benefit of some of our thinking.

RC: Great! So when are you publishing?

YA: No idea! We're just getting it together now. But the stuff's all there; it's just a case of putting it all together. As we've gone along we've written up what we've done and then some reflections on it, you know, so it's all there. It's just sitting down and doing it...

RC: OK. Umm... Say you're working in special educational needs, where would you point to the areas where SFT really stands out as being of help?

YA: I think it could be useful in any area, if you think about it as solution focused thinking.

RC: Yeah. Suppose you have a welfare assistant who's spending all of every school day, one on one, in and out of classes with a pupil. Plainly you're not going to be asking the miracle question every day or a scaling question every couple of hours, but is there some kind of thing, the way the assistant can think, which can help?

YA: Yes. Individually with the young person to establish what they would like to usefully work on, what would be the small signs of this happening, and what it will take to get there? Plus the continuous focus on strengths through direct comments (e.g. "You settled well.") And process questions ("How did you do that / manage that?") It's not a case of 'doing' the techniques continually, it's more about setting up a meaningful dialogue that has at its heart what people can do, and what they want. If you were thinking about wanting people to reflect on their strengths and skills and resources, whatever happens, you could ask them about, what was their thinking behind that? Why did they think that would be a good idea for them, or how did they make good use of that? Or, if they were succeeding at something, what did they learn about themselves? Those kinds of questions, which are not exclusive to SFBT but are part of it, part of the dialogue, of helping people look at their strengths and skills, you could use those questions in anything that came up.

RC: Mhm. And kids respond to scales as well, don't they?

YA: They love 'em. Yeah. And scales are very flexible, so you could be talking about behaviour scales, or organisation, or particular subjects, or getting that bit of coursework done, or being able to work with those six people on your table, handwriting, punctuality, anything. I've had some fantastic examples of people using them very creatively, not just writing them down, but making big, laminated sheets that people walk up and down, or getting people to sit in different chairs according to scales, so you're bringing them alive. An example, very artistic, is to have this cliff thing, and ask about what people could do that could move them away from the edge of the cliff, and this was actually a scale that they were talking about, and it was very funny, the pictures were very amusing, and it really captured kids attention and it got them talking about and reflecting on what was happening. And you can involve parents, too, in the dialogue, in meetings and reviews and stuff. I think you can make much better, more focused use of the time available in annual reviews or termly reviews. And it's more forward-looking.

RC: Right. If you are interviewing a child, lets say under 10, preadolescent anyway, what are the big differences to meeting adults?

YA: One difference would be whether you're going to be working with a child on their own, or whether you're going to be working with an adult present.

RC:  - Suppose a kid on their own, first of all -

YA: - Because I think it's important to think about who is bringing the main concern, for example, and thinking about the system around the kid in supporting any changes they're going to make.

RC: Yes.

YA: I think a lot about engagement. Kids being engaged, motivated, and a level of enjoyment in a discussion, because I think if you've got that, then you can tap in to their thinking, it's there.

RC: So you've got to make it enjoyable, as far as you can?

YA: Yes, I think so, and you do that by, um, I probably use my body and face more, and my voice, in terms of varying it, and excitement, and it's a bit more, I think, theatrical with young people, and I think especially with younger children, in terms of their being able to express themselves. They can sometimes show more through a role-play or through a drawing than they can actually express in words. You're looking to maximise their ability to express themselves. You might say, "Show me! Show me what you mean." For example I worked with a child who talked about "ignoring" so I said, "Well, show me how you would ignore. Teach me how to do it, and I'm going to show you what you've taught me, and you tell me whether that was what you meant." 

RC: Right!

YA: So - there is I suppose quite an element of reinforcing and repetition to what you're doing as well. It's likely to be more active - but I think every worker has a different style, and that's my style. That was my style as a teacher, so I guess I draw on that.

RC: OK. Now you work as a trainer, I guess the biggest single chunk of your work is going out and training for the Brief Therapy Practice. Do you find that a good way of revision, a good way of learning about SFBT for yourself?

YA: Yes, very good. When I first started I thought it was such a treat to think about and talk about SFBT; because as an EP I had a lot of time when the job meant that I was not able to. I learn every time I teach, which I guess is why it still seems very fresh, even though I've been doing it for two-and-a-half years now. Although there's a core of ideas that I use every time, there's always something I do slightly differently, or in response to a question I will explain something in a different way and think, that was a good way of saying that! I like to illustrate my teaching with anecdotes and stories, because I think that makes it easier to listen to. I think that people sometimes take away those stories - that's what they remember, and then they think about the principles attached to the story.

So, my teaching informs my practice, and I think my practice has improved through teaching it. And I would recommend to anybody who is really interested in SFBT to try and explain it to somebody, even if they are just explaining and not teaching it. By doing this you can clarify for yourself what you are doing.

Notes

The school counselling scheme mentioned above is described in Solutions in Schools (Brief Therapy Press, 2001)

(Eds. Yasmin Ajmal and Ioan Rees) Chapter 5, pp74-85: Empowering Students to Empower Others, by the ABC Peer Support Scheme at Acland Burghley School, Vavi Hillel and Eliza Smith, Co-ordinators.

BT Press can be contacted by email: orders@btpress.co.uk or their website is http://www.btpress.co.uk

At the last update of this site the pack for training peer counsellors which Yasmin mentions in relation to the Peer Support Scheme was still 'in development'.