The term “neuro” is popping up with increasing regularity these days. I’ve recently received brochures for events on the “neuroscience of psychotherapy” and “neurobehavioural modelling for coaches”. There are also widespread references in the media and professional literature to neuroaesthetics, neuropolitics, neurohistory, neuroeconomics – the list seems endless.
The field of neuroscience is burgeoning, and, in combination with areas such as genetics and cognitive science, is giving the academic community plenty to think about. But what of its assimilation into such diverse areas as outlined above? Can neuroscience be sensibly invoked to facilitate an understanding of almost everything?
In September I attended a masterclass, Neuropsychology for Coaches: The Science of Coaching, organised by the Association for Coaching in Ireland and presented by Prof Paul Brown, a clinical and organisational psychologist with an international practice that takes him around the world. I was curious about how neuroscience could be applied to coaching.
Coaching is another area that has taken legs over recent years. Aside from sports coaching, with which we are all familiar, there is management, executive, business and life-coaching to start. Coaches constitute a motley crew, and I count myself among their number, having been involved in coaching in the financial sector since about 1993 or thereabouts.
The idea of combining coaching and neuroscience seemed to me a strange pursuit, and so it proved. About two-thirds of the masterclass was taken up with a basic presentation on neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, with lots of colourful images of the brain. To be fair, we were informed that we know little or nothing as to what these images actually mean. They were just nice to look at.
'I change brains'
On Prof Brown's website promoting his book Neuropsychology for Coaches, we are told: "Coaches are in contact with their clients' brains all the time – that's all there is!" "I am a coach and I change brains," we were told during the masterclass.
The framework he uses in his work is referred to as neurobehavioural modelling. His formal definition is: “neurobehavioural modelling is the means by which an executive coach, who has a working knowledge of the brain and mind, interacts with a client brain to brain, for the contractually agreed purpose of creating (structural) change in (the brain of) the client so that: behaviour changes; the self is modified; and the gains made are consolidated into lasting and sustainable change”.
Given our ongoing struggle to understand brain function, that none of us can agree as to what the mind is (other than an emergent property of the brain), and that attempts at defining the self precipitates even more problems, it would be very interesting to see the legal argument in any dispute that might arise with regard to the contract drawn up.
It seems that neuroscience, while immensely valuable in its own right, is not the level of analysis at which practising coaches should be focusing their attention. Associating coaching with neuroscience may help construct the illusion that the former is more scientific than it is, but in truth it adds little of substance.
Much of the practical work done in the coaching arena more appropriately draws on research from behavioural and cognitive psychology, sociology, anthropology and other areas concerned with observable and measurable human behaviour.
There were about 50 coaches present at the event I attended, and the vast majority seemed impressed with Prof Brown’s presentation.
No doubt they were all intrigued with the neuroscience, and why not? It is intrinsically fascinating. But I would advise caution in going “brain to brain” with their clients.
Many of the disciplines aligning their practice with neuroscience refer to brain-imaging data and in particular functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI), which allows glimpses of the brain in action during specific tasks, as opposed to just a static picture.
Numerous challenges arise in the interpretation of FMRI data for other than relatively simple task analysis. There are many technical questions raised regarding reliability, for example.
Neuroimaging as the new phrenology is a topic we will consider at the November meeting of the Irish Skeptics Society. Keep an eye on the website for details.
Paul O’Donoghue is a Clinical Psychologist and founder member of the Irish Skeptics Society. irishskeptics.org