The Canonical Chastise of The Evidence-Based Approach
The Canonical Chastise of The Evidence-Based Approach
To succeed in the ever-changing topography of depraved social media anarchists vs scientific dogmatic belligerence seems an inauspicious quest to find oneself a middle ground for success. “Science-based” or “Evidence-based” doesn’t inherently mean optimal, practical, or even rational when translated into the real world, (as much as one may wish to hide under it’s metaphorical security blanket of justification)- whereas wanton implementation without scientific rigour is disparate of any moral judgement nor any level of jurisprudence to the cause nor client.
Scientific rigour should indeed inform the approach, intent and groundworks, however, taken obsequiously as biblical law for widespread assimilation expecting a smooth osmosis in to every client’s programming lacks inherent understanding for what evidence-based really means. ‘Evidence’ simply means something has been researched and documented, moreover, the research itself is never without limitations. As the world shows many a time over, one size does not fit all; context matters, study design matters, bias exists, and application is key.
This is why experience, critical thinking, and real-world outcomes should sit alongside research — not beneath it… without this, one is rendered at the demise of logic chopping and the fallacy of thinking the answer can be found in a paper, or as modern times would have it, on the internet and AI.
If we’re all blindly singing from the same hymn sheet without question then there’s no challenge, no mental jousting, no impetus for evolution… it denies the stimulus for rumbunctious debate between experts, thus, no catalyst for development. If all coaches were to espouse evidence-based as their gospel verbatim without trialling, it would stifle any remnants of personalisation, idiosyncratic allowances, or future advancements within the industry a whole. One can easily recall how, ‘science’ has been falsified on innumerate ‘facts’ over epochs. Worldwide phenomenon of the atom as the smallest thing?
I say this humbly, as someone who fervently spouts the importance of a coach’s edification- not as an hubristic self-affirming placation for the brewing industry concerns of AI using the evidence of the internet to steal the value and role of a coach. To the contrary, I say; it can steal the job of a coach… but only the job of a coach who doesn’t care if the client succeeds… AI, nor science alone, can steal the eyes, intuition or involvement of an experienced, fastidious coach… ‘recipe for the sauce’ metaphor seems apt. We don’t have to choose a side; there is a conciliatory middle ground where success indeed lies. I postulate science as credulous information for the foundations and accession, not as something that can dictate without manipulation.
With strength,
Camille
Founder, CGCoaching
