Applying Bowenian and structural theories to treatment plans

Settle the structure first, because the brief states it in two places and only one of them is easy to notice. The assignment bullets say *based on the theory demonstrated in both videos*, singular theory and plural videos, which reads as though one plan is wanted. The framing paragraph above them is unambiguous: *you then formulate treatment **plans** for the **families** in the videos, applying the theories in question*. Two videos, two different theories, two different families, two plans. So the four bullets run twice — a Bowenian problem definition, plan, interventions and outcome for Guerin's family, and a structural set for Aponte's. Eight components across four to six pages is roughly half a page each, which is exactly why deciding this before drafting matters. Label the two halves explicitly with headings, since a marker working down the bullets twice needs to see where one case ends and the other begins.

*Define the problem* is the bullet that separates a strong paper from a competent one, because in both traditions the problem definition is **theory-dependent** rather than descriptive. A Bowenian definition is written in terms of differentiation of self, triangles, emotional cutoff and multigenerational transmission — not “the couple argues about money”, but something closer to a chronically anxious system in which two members manage tension by recruiting a third. A structural definition is about organisation: boundaries that are diffuse or rigid, subsystems, hierarchy, a cross-generational coalition. Writing an ordinary-language problem statement and then attaching theory to it afterwards is the most common failure here, and it makes everything downstream look bolted on. Write both problem definitions before anything else, because every remaining bullet is downstream of them and a weak definition propagates through the whole paper.

Because the two definitions differ, the interventions follow different logics and should not resemble each other. Bowenian work is largely cognitive and slow: the genogram, process questions that lower reactivity, coaching one person toward taking an “I” position, detriangling. Structural work happens in the room and changes the family's organisation directly: joining, then enactment, then boundary making and unbalancing. If your two sets of interventions could be swapped between the two families without anyone noticing, you have described generic family counselling rather than applied the two theories. The brief also asks you to **justify your selection**, which means saying what the intervention is supposed to shift in that theory's terms, not why it seems useful in general. Naming the specific technique — genogram, detriangling, enactment, boundary making — is also what makes the justification writable, since a generic move has no theoretical rationale to state.

*Explain one anticipated outcome of each* is singular by design, and the discipline it imposes is worth using rather than resisting. One outcome per intervention, stated in the theory's own currency — and the two theories predict different kinds of change on different timescales. Bowen's model anticipates gradual movement in an individual's differentiation and a reduction in the system's chronic anxiety, which is not a quick result and should not be described as one. Structural work anticipates observable reorganisation — a boundary that holds, a parental subsystem that functions — and can move faster. Naming that difference between the two halves of your paper is a genuinely analytical move that costs one sentence. Goals should carry the same distinction: a Bowenian short-term goal is usually about lowering reactivity rather than resolving the presenting complaint.

Two instructions are easy to skim past and both are checkable. The brief tells you to apply these theories *while you may not have adopted either of these theories as your theoretical orientation* — so a paper that keeps stepping outside to note its own reservations, or that quietly imports cognitive-behavioural or solution-focused moves, has not done the exercise. Stay inside each model for its half. And the sourcing rule runs the opposite way to most: you must *provide a reference list for all resources, **including** those in the Learning Resources*, so the videos, both course texts and the assigned articles all belong in the reference list rather than being assumed. Citing the videos themselves is easy to forget and they are the primary evidence for both problem definitions, so they belong in the list before anything else does.