The Model First or The People First?

Deepening my work as a family therapist, I took up a specialized training in Structural Family Therapy with Professor Timothy Sim from Singapore.

At the end of part 2 training, we were invited to reflect on our key takeaway, I initially thought about the concepts, interventions, and clinical applications we had learned. Many of the content I learnt were significant such as certainty is the enemy of change, unbalancing the power, therapist distance, noticing our own auto "self" in therapy.....so many. Yet what stayed with me most was something more personal:

Learning to trust my own professional judgement and gut feelings—and to be honest about what sits well with me and what does not.

I have often talked myself out of my own discomfort when I noticed responses or interactions that did not sit well with me. I would question whether I was being too critical, too sensitive, or simply not understanding the model well enough.

Throughout the training, Professor Tim welcomed questions and critique. We were encouraged not only to understand the model, but also to examine its assumptions, limitations, and relevance to the families we serve. This experience was relieving and empowering.

He also invited us to consider how the approach might land within the realities of families in Malaysia. This reminded me that a model should not simply be transferred from one cultural or relational context to another without thoughtful reflection.

I was reminded of a question Professor Maurizio Andolfi once posed at the conference:

In family therapy, which is more important—the family or the therapy? When the family is more important, therapy serves the family. When therapy becomes more important, the family is expected to serve the therapy.

It is easy to say that the family comes first. It is harder to notice when we may be expecting families to fit our theories, language, timelines, or preferred ways of working.

Sometimes, what we describe as resistance may also tell us something important about how the therapy is landing.

A model can offer structure, direction, and a shared clinical language. But it should never replace the therapist’s responsibility to think critically, attend to context, and consider the impact of an intervention.

When loyalty to an approach becomes more important than curiosity, ethics, or lived experience, clinical practice can become rigid. A living practice must remain open to questions, dialogue, and revision.

The training also invited reflection on power, culture, responsibility, and impact that therapist has on families. Even when an intervention makes sense theoretically, we still need to ask:

How might this land on the other person?

Whose needs are being prioritised?

Am I responding to the family with curiosity—or protecting my loyalty to the model or people from the model?

I also found myself reflecting on leadership. Leadership is not demonstrated only through expertise or authority but also with deep care and respect. It becomes visible in how we respond to disagreement, uncertainty, difficulty, and unintended impact.

This experience clarified the kind of clinician, trainer, supervisor, and leader I hope to become:

Grounded, but not rigid.

Knowledgeable, but not unquestionable.

Willing to lead, while remaining open to critique.

Committed to learning, without losing sight of the people the learning is meant to serve.

I feel grounded that professional maturity does not require me to choose between belonging and thinking for myself. I do not have to abandon a model to remain myself, nor abandon myself to belong to a model.

Perhaps my deepest takeaway was not simply how to practise Structural Family Therapy.

It was the reminder that responsible practice requires more than mastering a model.

It requires the humility to question what we know, the courage to recognise when our work may not be serving the people before us, and the willingness to adjust our position.

Ultimately, the model must remain in service of their dignity, safety, relationships, cultural realities, and capacity for meaningful change. Warmly, Cheryl Chin