The techne vs phronesis problem
Additionally, there is a problem with the relationship between ‘Techne’ and ‘Phronesis’. Schön (1987:3) provides some help here in the following quote:
On the high ground, management problems lend themselves to solution through the application of research-based theory and technique. In the swampy lowland, messy confusing problems defy technical solution. The irony of this situation is that the problems of the high ground tend to be relatively unimportant to individuals or society at large, however, great their technical interest may be, while in the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern.
Coaching is complex. It is varied in its application and is employed in a range of contexts. Its potential for doing ‘good’ and making a positive difference to people is huge. It is therefore, quite firmly in the ‘swampy lowlands’ where ‘techne’ doesn’t help.
‘Techne’ makes it easier to judge if outcomes or objectives are met.
‘Techne’ treats learning as a ‘linear’ activity (Garvey et al, 2014) where the learner moves in a straight line rather like moving along a road or up a staircase and the ‘techne’ discourse is attractive; if we know the precise route then the logic dictates that most helpful thing we can do is accelerate their journey and get a pre-specified destination as quickly as possible.
Some human progress happens in this way but this is only a fraction of human capability. Yes, this approach enhances accountability and quality control (the arguments of professional bodies in coaching) but it is also limited in that it may get us to where we want to go by the fastest and most direct route but it “cannot develop our awareness of the different kinds of destination available, the speed of travel or the choice of route, nor does it hold out any promise that we will be enriched simply by the travelling” (Garvey et al, 2014:113). It does not develop the essential quality of ‘phronesis’ so needed by a coach.
The holders of the ‘techne’ i.e. the competence framework, have power over the assessment and accreditation system. This probably means that ‘phronesis’ is discounted. As Barnett (1994:37) states “genuinely interactive and collaborative forms of reasoning” (phronesis) are being driven out by ‘techne’ and as a result, we are not developing coaches capable of the very qualities we hope that coaching will help develop.
The standards problem
A further problem with competence led assessment is the issue of standards. Garvey et al (2014:220) ask “Do standards raise standards?” A very important paradoxical question with a serious underbelly! Could standards simply mean that trainers or educators work to the minimum and therefore ‘standards’ reduce standards? Would you like to be coached by a coach who achieved a minimum pass on standards framework?
Download Article 1K Club
