Metaphors & mechanics
Do coaching psychology explanations need to be 'true' to have value in our coaching work? What does this mean for evidence based coaching practice?
I read an excellent article on Polyvagal Theory (PVT) this week. If you’re not already familiar with this theory, it is a physiological explanation of our reaction to stress and strain. In very simple terms, it explains the connection between our physiological state and our psychological experiences. The article I read outlined some inaccuracies and inconsistencies in PVT that researchers have summarised in a recent paper that undermines the theory. The article explored whether this means we have to stop using theories like this in practice when the evidence doesn’t support them in a particular way, and suggests that it might depend on how they are being used. I won’t try to recreate the full argument here as the article outlines it beautifully - I recommend you read it (link at the end).
Do coaching psychology explanations need to be ‘true’ to have value in our coaching work?
This article lead me to reflect on what this means within the field of coaching psychology. We often offer psycho-education to clients to help them understand how they respond to different experiences in their life. For example, some of our emotions or thoughts are difficult or frightening. In these instances, we tend to avoid those experiences or feelings. Acceptance and Commitment Theory (ACT) suggests that this very normal process of avoiding difficult or unpleasant experiences is totally normal; but is often also where we get ‘stuck’.
Something that always intrigues me about ACT is that it doesn’t try to explain the mechanics of the brain or physiology. Instead it presents a metaphorical explanation that describes how our minds work and how we can get unstuck through being more psychologically flexible. It’s helpful to clients to explain that story to them - even though we don’t yet fully understand the mechanics of how ‘the brain’ and ‘our mind’ are connected. This approach avoids needing a ‘true’ physiological explanation, and instead offers a functional explanation (i.e. this is the impact of the way our minds work based on what we know about how minds work).
What does this mean for evidence based coaching practice?
The article on PVT was a reminder that the connection between our body and mind is complex - probably too complex for our current theories to have it right. There’s more to learn, and more challenges in gaining that knowledge than we’ve had the chance to overcome yet. We just don’t know enough yet. However, I agree with the author that we can still use that knowledge in an evidence based way if we don’t make explanations overly reductionist to physiological mechanics. Instead we can explain psychological experiences with honest uncertainty - that this is our best current understanding but we still don’t know enough.
As evidence based coaching practitioners we can sit in that uncomfortable space of not knowing enough yet. Where we can provide useful metaphors, whether that’s about our mind or our body, we should do so, to help clients build a better relationship with themselves and others. We can embrace this period of exciting scientific discovery that we are living through as we explore more about the very complex mind and body connection, without reducing it to overly simplistic and mechanistic explanations that may not be true.
You can read the full article on PVT here:
