Abstract Researching participants’ experiences through a qualitative, multiperspective design presents distinct ethical challenges, particularly when including both partners and their therapist during ongoing couple therapy where violence is a central concern. Situated within a publicly funded therapeutic context, this study examines these challenges through interviews with eight clients and five therapists, which were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Four key themes emerged: (1) When Understanding Accumulates: Confidentiality and Safety as Emerging Ethical Tensions , (2) Motivation , Recruitment , and Power in Interconnected Relationships , (3) Consent in Motion: An Iterative and Ongoing Process , and (4) Research Ripples: Reflexive Spillovers into Ongoing Therapy? The findings indicate that ethical dilemmas often emerge as situated “branching points”, decision-making junctures in which relational and systemic interconnections continually reshape participants’ vulnerability and researchers’ responsibilities. These branching points cannot be adequately addressed and managed through procedural safeguards alone. To navigate such dilemmas, the study describes a triadic process involving: (1) cultivating ethical sensitivity and attentiveness to emerging branching points ; (2) interpreting these situations through reflection and dialogue to form provisional ethical impressions ; and (3) mobilizing resources to respond with context-aware action. Overall, the study highlights that ethical research in sensitive, multiperspective contexts involves ongoing ethical judgment rather than the identification of a single “right” course of action. Ethical research practice is shown to require sustained reflexivity, responsiveness, and care as research unfolds alongside complex relational and systemic processes.

Abstract Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health and clinical concern. Research indicates that IPV occurs more frequently among couples seeking therapy than in the general population. However, it is often not disclosed at the time of referral and instead emerges gradually through the therapeutic process. This qualitative study examines the process by which IPV becomes the main focus of conjoint therapy in cases where it was not initially disclosed. Using a multiperspective Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), we conducted and analyzed separate interviews with 13 participants, four heterosexual couples and their therapists, who were engaged in ongoing therapy at the Norwegian Family Counselling Service at the time of the interviews. The analysis resulted in two main group experiential themes that illuminate a dual-journey process towards violence-focused couple therapy comprising two interrelated phases: the Pre-Therapy Journey , which includes the sub-themes: (1) Women’s Agency in Initiating Change , (2) Children as Catalysts for Change , (3) Critical Threshold: Reaching “Enough is Enough” , and (4) The History and Impact of Unsuccessful Help-Seeking Attempts ; and the In-Therapy Journey , which encompasses the sub-themes: (5) Is It Violence? Internal and Relational Negotiations and (6) Beyond “Repair”? Relational and Therapeutic Consequences of Long-term Patterns of IPV . Together, these six sub-themes constitute a dynamic and temporally layered understanding of how IPV becomes the primary focus of couple therapy. The discussion introduces the Dual Journey Model, providing a conceptual framework and practical guidance for enhancing clinical and organizational capacity to develop IPV-sensitive and safer couple therapy interventions.

Abstract This qualitative pilot study seeks to bridge problem-focused and resilience- and strengths-based perspectives on the relationships of U.S. couples parenting autistic children to describe how these couples demonstrate resilience in a neuro-normative society. Secondary deductive qualitative analysis with inductive critical discourse analysis used interviews with five married, Christian couples parenting autistic children and examined the data against a Skerrett’s (in: Skerrett and Fergus, Couple resilience, Springer, 2015) theory of couple resilience and the Double ABCX model to better understand how they demonstrate resilience as partners and parents while raising an autistic child. Findings support a preliminary theory of process resilience that integrates Skerrett’s (in: Skerrett and Fergus, Couple resilience, Springer, 2015) theory of couple resilience and the Double ABCX model that is refined and expanded to include the influence of underlying societal structures that privilege neuro-normative meaning making about autism and neuro-normative expectations of marriage and parenting. Implications for practice include the potential importance of systemic brief therapy, teletherapy, or in-home treatments, and future research can consider how language use shapes couples’ experiences of stress in their relationship and in parenting autistic children.

Abstract LGBTQ+ youth are at disproportionate risk for suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB). Family relationships within this population act as both a risk and protector factor for SIB, yet family-based treatments are rarely utilized at LGBTQ+ community centers. Prior research has explored the perceptions of LGBTQ+ youth, caregivers, and treatment providers on the use of family based treatment. Notably, no research has explored perceptions of another key stakeholder group: administrators. The present study used semi-structured interviews with administrators ( N = 10) supporting LGBTQ+ community centers regarding implementation of family-based services for LGBTQ+ youth with SIB. Semi-structured interviews explored (1) the needs of LGBTQ+ youth, (2) where a program that includes family-based interventions should be housed, and (3) how a program could be sustained. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results include nine needs, nine barriers, and 12 facilitators of family-based services for LGBTQ+ youth with SIB. Administrators generally found family-based services to be important, beneficial, and needed. They described missing, necessary factors (needs), existing barriers to implementation, and existing facilitative factors. Administrators generally described a need for additional education on affirmative practice, professionals to examine their own biases, and an improvement in standardization of care. They identified implementation barriers related to youth rejection from caregivers, lack of affirming healthcare, and logistical concerns. Lastly, they described inner-agency collaboration, family interventions, youth driven care, and resources for clinicians as facilitative implementation factors.