Narrative Therapy Techniques: Externalising, Re-Authoring and Unique Outcomes

Practical questions and a worked example to help practitioners connect externalising conversations, unique outcomes and preferred stories of identity.

Related articles: Rethinking Narrative Therapy, Therapies for First Nations Australians: Post-modern, When Machines Mirror Us: AI Bias and the Stories We Tell.

More resources: Explore Narrative Therapy Training.

Before you start reading this article: MHA membership increases your choices and reduces your CPD costs. As a member, you only pay a fixed monthly or annual membership fee to access 650+ courses in our Catalogue. If you are not yet a member, learn more and join. Access for your team? Learn more about group memberships.

Introduction

Narrative therapy techniques help practitioners explore the relationship between a person and the stories shaping their life. Externalising separates a problem from the person’s identity. Unique outcomes are experiences or intentions that sit outside a dominant problem story. Re-authoring connects these experiences into a fuller account of what the person values and how they want to live (Carey & Russell, 2002, 2003).

For practitioners, the skill lies in following the client’s language, recognising meaningful detail and asking questions that develop it. This guide explains how the three practices work together, with original question examples and a fictional clinical illustration. MHA’s narrative therapy courses offer a next step for exploring the foundations and observing therapeutic conversations.

How the three narrative therapy techniques connect

Narrative practice treats people as knowledgeable about their lives. A practitioner contributes curiosity and purposeful questions while checking whether the conversation fits the person’s interests and preferred direction (Morgan, 2000).

Practice	Main purpose	An illustrative question
Externalising	Explore a problem’s influence without making it the person’s defining identity.	“When the pressure to get everything right appears, what does it ask you to give up?”
Identifying unique outcomes	Notice experiences that the dominant story does not adequately explain.	“You asked for more time on that occasion. How does that fit with the description ‘I never speak up’?”
Re-authoring	Link meaningful experiences with values, relationships and a preferred direction across time.	“Where else in your life has this concern for fairness influenced what you did?”

These practices overlap. A unique outcome may emerge while discussing the problem’s effects, and re-authoring may lead back to further exploration of those effects. They are conversational possibilities rather than a fixed sequence (Carey & Russell, 2003).

The questions throughout this article are original educational examples informed by the cited practice literature. Adapt them to the person and context; they are not a validated treatment protocol.

Externalising the problem

Externalising invites exploration of a problem as something affecting a person’s life. A statement such as “I am useless” can become a conversation about when a sense of uselessness gains influence, what sustains it and how the person responds. Naming is the beginning of that inquiry, not its endpoint (Carey & Russell, 2002).

Find language the client recognises

Begin with the client’s description and check your understanding. A person might refer to “the pressure”, “self-doubt” or “the never-good-enough feeling”. Another may prefer ordinary language without a name or metaphor. The wording should remain open to revision as understanding develops (Carey & Russell, 2002).

Possible questions include:

• “When you say ‘I’m a failure’, what experiences are gathered into that description?”
• “Would ‘the pressure to prove yourself’ fit, or am I missing something?”
• “How would you prefer us to describe what has been happening?”

If a proposed name feels artificial, return to the person’s words. Externalising can be explored through a question such as “What has this worry been costing you?” without creating a character or giving the problem a personality (Carey & Russell, 2002).

Map influence in both directions

Explore the effects on daily life and relationships, then the person’s responses and their view of those effects. This helps place the problem in context and makes room for the person’s knowledge and priorities (Carey & Russell, 2002).

• “What happens to your evenings when the checking continues?”
• “Which effects concern you most, and what makes those important?”
• “What conditions at work make this pressure harder to resist?”
• “When have you had some say in how much of your time it takes?”

Avoid assuming that naming a problem explains its cause. Keep the person’s circumstances in view, including cultural expectations, workplace conditions and demands imposed by others (Carey & Russell, 2002; Drahm-Butler, 2015). For a related clinical discussion, see Addressing Feelings of Inadequacy in Clinical Practice.

Identifying unique outcomes

A unique outcome is an event, response or intention that does not fit the dominant problem story. It may be small and easily overlooked. The problem can still be present: someone may feel anxious while making a decision that anxiety would usually discourage (Carey & Russell, 2003).

Notice detail outside the dominant story

Suppose a client says, “I always agree to everything”, then mentions asking a colleague to clarify an unrealistic deadline. That moment warrants curiosity. Its significance remains to be explored with the client.

You might ask:

• “You paused before agreeing this time. Could we spend a little time with that pause?”
• “What were you considering when you decided to ask?”
• “Was there something you wanted to protect by doing that?”

An intention can also offer an opening. A client who wanted to seek support but could not do so may have something important to say about connection, safety or what prevented action. Explore those meanings without presenting an uncompleted intention as an accomplished change (Carey & Russell, 2003).

Let the client decide what matters

A practitioner’s enthusiasm can outpace the client’s experience. Carey and Russell (2003) emphasise examining whether an event matters to the person before building an alternative story around it.

Ask, “Does that moment seem relevant to what you want from these conversations?” If the answer is no, follow that response. If the client is uncertain, explore the circumstances without pressing for a positive conclusion.

A useful distinction is between identifying an exception and understanding its significance. “You did speak up” identifies an event. Asking what enabled it, why it mattered and whether it connects with other experiences begins to develop a preferred story (Carey & Russell, 2003).

Re-authoring preferred stories

Re-authoring develops an account of identity grounded in actual experience. It links previously overlooked events across time and explores the meanings the person gives them. A preferred story needs enough detail to be recognisable to the client, including the difficulties that remain (Carey & Russell, 2003).

Move between action and identity

Re-authoring conversations move between the landscape of action and the landscape of identity. Action questions examine what happened and how; identity questions explore the person’s intentions, values and understanding of themselves (Carey & Russell, 2003).

Focus	Questions to explore
Describe the event	“What happened immediately before you asked for clarification?” “What did you say?”
Understand the preparation	“Had you been thinking about this beforehand?” “What helped you find those words?”
Explore meaning	“What mattered enough for you to raise the issue?” “What name would you give that concern?”
Link with history	“When else has that concern influenced a decision?” “Where did you first learn its importance?”
Consider a preferred direction	“If you made more room for this commitment, what might change in your working week?”

Stay close to the person’s answers. If a client describes an action as “doing my part fairly”, work with that meaning rather than supplying a label such as “assertiveness” that they have not chosen (Carey & Russell, 2003; Morgan, 2000).

Connect events across time and relationships

One meaningful event can become more fully understood through links with earlier experiences and important relationships. A client might recall a similar decision, a person who influenced their values or someone who would recognise the commitment they are describing (Carey & Russell, 2003).

For example: “Who has seen you act on this concern before?” A remembered person can contribute to the conversation without being physically present. If the client wants to involve someone directly or share a written reflection, agree on what can be shared and with whom (Carey & Russell, 2003).

A brief client-approved note can preserve the details: what happened, what the client called it, what it meant and what they want to remember. Narrative letters and documents are established ways of supporting continuity between conversations (Carey & Russell, 2003).

A worked example of the three techniques

The following is a fictional teaching example. It illustrates possible questions and responses, not an actual client, a session transcript or evidence of treatment success.

Jordan describes a demanding workplace and says, “I always back down. I must be weak.” Jordan wants to protect time with family but worries about being seen as unhelpful.

Externalising. The practitioner asks, “When you agree to extra work, what is influencing the decision?” Jordan describes “the pressure to be the reliable one”. The practitioner checks that wording, then asks about its effects. Jordan describes working late, missing family activities and feeling resentful. They also discuss understaffing and the manager’s expectations, keeping the workplace conditions visible.

A possible unique outcome. Jordan mentions having recently requested a revised deadline. The practitioner asks, “You’ve described how difficult that request was. What made it possible on that occasion?” Jordan says the original deadline would have meant cancelling a commitment to a child.

Instead of declaring the request a breakthrough, the practitioner asks, “Is that decision something you would like us to understand better?” Jordan agrees: “I want my family to be able to rely on me too.”

Re-authoring. The practitioner explores how Jordan prepared the request, then asks where else this concern for family has shaped a decision. Jordan recalls protecting time for a parent’s medical appointment and describes learning from a relative that care includes being available.

Jordan calls the emerging story “being reliable in a way I can sustain”. This wording preserves a valued commitment while creating room to examine limits.

A possible next step. Jordan chooses to consider an alternative deadline before accepting the next additional task, provided doing so feels safe in that workplace. The practitioner asks what support or organisational change may also be needed. The example ends with a direction Jordan has chosen; the workload problem remains to be addressed.

This illustration draws on the conversational principles described by Carey and Russell (2002, 2003). The practitioner follows the client’s meaning and checks significance throughout.

Common pitfalls and clinical judgement

Moving too quickly to a preferred story. A client may first need time to describe the seriousness of what is happening. Returning to the effects of the problem can be an essential part of re-authoring work. Pressing for positives can leave the person feeling unheard (Carey & Russell, 2003).

Treating externalising as permission to avoid responsibility. Separate the person’s identity from the problem while retaining a clear account of their actions and effects on others. When violence, coercion or abuse is involved, attend explicitly to safety, power and accountability. Describing “anger” as influential must not excuse harm (Carey & Russell, 2002).

Reducing social conditions to an individual story. Overwork, discrimination, poverty or coercion cannot be resolved simply by changing how a person describes themselves. Narrative inquiry includes examining the cultural and relational conditions that sustain a problem (Carey & Russell, 2002).

In Australian practice, Drahm-Butler’s (2015) account of Aboriginal narrative work highlights culturally situated meanings, collective histories and people’s own definitions of wellbeing. Practitioners should approach these contributions with attention to local context, rather than assume that narrative terminology alone makes their work culturally appropriate.

Using questions beyond your competence or the client’s priorities. Treat these examples as prompts for learning and supervision. Where assessment, immediate protection, practical assistance or another intervention is needed, address that need. For related reading about identity and self-evaluation, see Working with Shame: Interventions for Deep Emotional Healing.

What the evidence supports

The practice sources cited here explain the concepts and conversational maps used in narrative therapy. They are relevant to how the work is understood and conducted, but they do not establish treatment effectiveness (Carey & Russell, 2002, 2003; Morgan, 2000).

In a controlled trial involving 63 adults with moderate depression, both narrative therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy were associated with symptom improvement. Between-group differences favoured CBT on the Beck Depression Inventory-II, but not on the broader Outcome Questionnaire-45.2 (Lopes et al., 2014).

A 2024 meta-analysis reported a pooled reduction in depressive symptoms among adults with somatic disorders who received narrative therapy-based interventions. The authors rated the evidence as low quality, noted that most included studies were conducted in China and reported that only two studies involved participants diagnosed with depression (Hu et al., 2024).

These findings warrant caution about broad effectiveness claims. Neither study establishes that a particular externalising question, or the brief sequence illustrated here, produces a specific clinical outcome. Use the research alongside client preferences, clinical assessment and supervision when considering how narrative practice fits the work (Hu et al., 2024; Lopes et al., 2014).

Develop your narrative therapy skills

Narrative Therapy: The Basics

• Format: Text
• Duration: 3 hours

Explore the assumptions, concepts and techniques underpinning narrative therapy. A relevant starting point for connecting the questions in this article with the approach’s broader foundations.

View course details >

A Narrative Approach to Working with Sobriety and Life Transitions

• Format: Video
• Duration: 1 hour

Observe a narrative conversation with a client navigating recovery and questions of worthiness. Use the demonstration to reflect on how the practitioner develops meaning through the client’s responses.

View course details >

Related practitioner reading

• Rethinking Narrative Therapy – explore meaning-making, power and the therapeutic relationship.
• Addressing Feelings of Inadequacy in Clinical Practice – extend your reading on difficult self-evaluations.
• Working with Shame: Interventions for Deep Emotional Healing – consider related clinical presentations and approaches.

Conclusion

Externalising, unique outcomes and re-authoring are connected conversational practices rather than a fixed sequence. Externalising creates room to examine a problem without making it the person’s identity; unique outcomes bring forward actions, intentions and experiences that the dominant story has obscured; and re-authoring links these details across time, relationships and values. The practitioner’s task is to follow the client’s language, check the meaning and significance of each development, and keep cultural and social conditions visible. These techniques should support rather than replace assessment, accountability, safety planning or other necessary interventions, and claims about effectiveness should remain proportionate to the limited evidence base (Carey & Russell, 2002, 2003; Hu et al., 2024; Morgan, 2000).

Key takeaways

• Externalising separates the problem from the person’s identity without separating the person from responsibility for their actions.
• A unique outcome becomes clinically useful only when the client considers it meaningful; do not turn a small exception into a success story prematurely.
• Re-authoring develops preferred stories by linking concrete events with intentions, values, relationships and history.
• The three practices overlap. Follow the client’s language and priorities rather than applying them as a scripted sequence.
• Keep culture, power and material circumstances in view, and use narrative techniques alongside appropriate assessment, supervision and safety procedures.

Questions therapists often ask

Q. Must externalising come before re-authoring?

A. No. The practices can overlap, and a conversation may move between problem effects and preferred developments. A meaningful event may provide an opening before a problem has a settled name. Follow the client’s priorities and the direction of the conversation (Carey & Russell, 2003).

Q. Can a unique outcome occur while distress remains?

A. Yes. A response can fall outside the problem story while the person is still distressed. The relevant question is what the experience means to the client, including any intention or value it expresses, rather than whether symptoms disappeared (Carey & Russell, 2003).

Q. Does the client need to give the problem a name?

A. No. A shared description can be useful, but a fixed name or personified character is not required. Check whether the language fits the client’s experience and revise it when necessary (Carey & Russell, 2002).

Q. Does externalising reduce personal responsibility?

A. It should not. Externalising conversations can examine actions and their consequences in detail. A person remains responsible for harmful behaviour, and the practitioner must attend to safety and accountability (Carey & Russell, 2002).

Q. Can I use these questions as a worksheet?

A. Use them as optional prompts rather than a script to complete. Discuss whether writing is useful to the client, allow their wording to guide the conversation and leave room for unexpected answers. This follows the collaborative approach described by Morgan (2000).

References

• Carey, M., & Russell, S. (2002). Externalising: Commonly asked questions. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 2002(2), 76–84. https://dulwichcentre.com.au/articles-about-narrative-therapy/externalising/
• Carey, M., & Russell, S. (2003). Re-authoring: Some answers to commonly asked questions. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 2003(3), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.652291092639962
• Drahm-Butler, T. (2015). Decolonising identity stories: Narrative practice through Aboriginal eyes. In B. Wingard, C. Johnson, & T. Drahm-Butler, Aboriginal narrative practice: Honouring storylines of pride, strength and creativity (pp. 26–46). Dulwich Centre Publications. https://dulwichcentre.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Decolonising-identity-stories-Narrative-practice-through-Aboriginal-eyes-by-Tileah-Drahm-Butler.pdf
• Hu, G., Han, B., Gains, H., & Jia, Y. (2024). Effectiveness of narrative therapy for depressive symptoms in adults with somatic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 24(4), Article 100520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2024.100520
• Lopes, R. T., Gonçalves, M. M., Machado, P. P. P., Sinai, D., Bento, T., & Salgado, J. (2014). Narrative therapy vs. cognitive-behavioral therapy for moderate depression: Empirical evidence from a controlled clinical trial. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.874052
• Morgan, A. (2000). What is narrative therapy? An easy-to-read introduction. Dulwich Centre Publications. https://dulwichcentre.com.au/articles-about-narrative-therapy/what-is-narrative-therapy/