ABSTRACT
Conversational resources and resourcefulness are different ways of thinking about the dialogic potentials of a conversational object (CBT). A polyphony of administrative, scientific, clinical, and lay voices shows lots of talking about, critiquing, and efforts to revise a loosely defined CBT. A very different orientation to problems, clients, communications, and 'efficacy' is called for in dialogic practice than from those approaches to CBT focused on diagnostic and manualized conversations. Perhaps the key difference comes with seeing the therapeutic dialogue as a delicate negotiation: of orientations, of meanings, of ways of talking, of actions, and of evaluations. Traditionally, many of these features of therapy have been seen as therapist's prerogatives. The warrant for these prerogatives has been their professional and scientific knowledge that is seen to be brought to the therapeutic conversation. A dialogic therapy where problems and therapeutic processes are negotiated with clients can sound daft or an abrogation of professional responsibility.
