Dewey’s philosophy is, therefore, built on the difference that he sees between routine action and reflective action. Unlike the flow of routine action, which is not pre-meditated, reflective action is based on “active, persistent and careful” consideration (Dewey 1910, p.6), and the need to solve a problem. This is a rationalism of action. For Dewey it is in problem solving that we find “the steadying and guiding factor in the entire process of reflection.” Although Dewey appears to borrow the notion of  the mind as an active power from Kant, he externalises and contextualises the other features of Kant’s critical idealism. Kant’s hidden synthetic operations become overt actions: Dewey claims that in order to have an experience we need to do something: there is always a physical or mental activity, or both, being done in an experience.

Summary

This brief overview of a small subset of Western thinkers is already abstract and partial. At the risk of oversimplifying we feel that it is helpful at this point to take stock once again. We have highlighted the Socratic Method, the avid questioning for clarity from Socrates, from which extends the elevation of reason. We moved on to Descartes who sought to use reason as the pure basis of knowledge and in so doing created the dualism of self and body. While careful not to shake religious dogma, Locke argued for the primacy of sense-experience as the source of knowledge. Hume took this to its logical conclusion: atheism and the bundle of senses theory of self, and it took Kant to reconcile reason and perception, self and sense, in a systematic manner. In this sense, Dewey might be seen as the implementer of Kant, turning the theory of knowledge into a practical way of knowing. We now turn to a consideration of how each of these ideas can be seen to emerge in coaching practice.

IMPACT ON COACHING PRACTICE

We argued in the Introduction that the goal of coaching is knowledge and the truth about reality and values at an individual level (for coaches and clients). In this respect, coaching is a dynamic interaction between two people who are cooperating in searching for greater clarity about the truth relative to the topic of concern to the client so that a suitable resolution may be found. It is, we would argue, a powerful dialectic.

However, as Creel explains, high motivation and a right attitude are “not enough to ensure progress toward the goal of philosophy” (p.43). Effective methods are also necessary. The same statement could have been made about coaching. In the next section we highlight the importance of the philosophical thinking discussed above in relation to coaching, what assumptions and methods it leads us to in our practice, and how it can better inform our own thinking and reflection about that practice.

Impact of Socrates and Plato

The biggest impact of Socrates and Plato on coaching comes, we would suggest, through their exposition of Socratic questioning. There are six types of questions, each with a different purpose: conceptual clarification; probing assumptions; proving rationale, reasons and evidence; questioning viewpoints and perspectives; proving implications and consequences; and ultimately questioning · the questions themselves.

Here again we have the opportunity to illustrate how philosophical practice and coaching approaches overlap. In the Socratic Method the learner makes an assertion and the teacher initiates an evaluation process. While the issues discussed in the Socratic Dialogues are the stuff of traditional philosophic inquiry (love, poetry; truth, etc.), coaching frequently concerns itself with more tangible problems, for example, career development or organisational survival. All the same, the method is directly relevant to coaching,  even if the six types of questions are not necessarily used in themselves. Indeed, facilitators of adult learning and development, including coaches, draw on the manner and intent of Socratic questioning through similar problem-solving models (for example, Neenan & Palmer, 200 Ia). At a practical level, Rogers (2004, p. 57) warns against “advice-in-disguise questions” and Whitworth, Kimsey­ Hall, and Sandahl (1998, p. 64) caution against closed questions and “information gathering”. But these warnings may only leave the developing coach struggling to remember the rules. Socratic questioning provides a more useful framework that helps guide the practitioner towards effective questioning, as Padesky (1993) has argued in relation to cognitive-behavioural therapists.