The method Dewey describes will seem familiar to coaches, since it involves several stages that resemble any transformative learning process. These can be summarised as follows:

1. A difficulty is presented (it may be cognitive, practical or existential).
2. Tentative ideas for meanings and actions that could shed light on the difficulty are gleaned from past experiences (our own and others).
3. Ideas are experimented with in order to resolve the difficulty.
4. Results are reflected on and evaluated, meaning is clarified, and the process continues until a working solution is found.

In many ways Dewey is articulating a learning cycle within these stages –   similar to that presented much later by Kolb (1984). We can also recognise the important role of reflective practice in this method and the centrality of learning in coaching for development. Dewey (1934) describes how attended experience can be deciphered through reflection and utilised for problem solving:

Each resting place in experience is an undergoing in which is absorbed and taken home the consequences of prior doing, and unless the doing is that of utter caprice or sheer routine, each doing carries in itself meaning that has been extracted and conserved. As with the advance of any army, all gains from what has been already effected are periodically consolidated, and always with a view to what is to be done next. If we move too rapidly we get away from the base of supplies – of accrued meanings – and the experience is flustered, thin and confused. If we dawdle too long after having extracted a net value, experience perishes of inanition. (p. 56)

As coaching practitioners we recognise these themes of continuity and interaction in guiding practice. Many approaches, but in particular developmental coaching, are influenced by Dewey’s ideas either directly or via intermediary concepts such as action learning (Revans, 1980), experiential learning (Kolb, I984) or reflective learning (e.g., Moon, 2004). In each case, the process of discovery is cyclical and emergent. We have noted elsewhere (Cox &Jackson, in press) that there is a balance to be struck between conceptualising a presenting issue as problem (to be solved) and opportunity (to develop).

Dewey also saw no distinction between ends and means; he found them to be of the same nature (I950). If some end (goal) is sought, certain means are employed to reach that end. Dewey was concerned with the reasons for reaching the end. If we imagine, for example, that a coaching client wants to increase her network of influential people, the end is a network of influential people. However, Dewey would argue that this end would be less than satisfying unless the client’s broader intent was to reach the end in order to build on it and go further. So for an end to have true significance for someone it needs to lose its position as an “end” and become a point of transition – it needs to become a means. For coaches this is an important point to note as they reflect on the use of goals in their work and in their clients’ success. As Dewey (1916) writes,

Every means is a temporary end until we have attained it. Every end becomes a means of carrying activity further as soon as it is achieved. We call it end when it marks off the future direction of the activity in which we are engaged; means when it marks off the present direction. Every divorce of end from means diminishes by that much the significance of the activity and tends to reduce it  to a drudgery from which one would escape if he could. (pp. 105-106)

The impact of Dewey’s pragmatic approach to knowledge development has had an important impact on subsequent theory and practice development in a range of disciplines. He avoided the emphasis on knowledge and belief as the only ends of inquiry and was the first to combine both reflection and action in the quest for knowledge. As such, he provides a strong foundation for modern coaching practices.