A new purpose for Socratic questioning in coaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Socratic questioning in coaching is a dialectic method, whose object is to bring to light the objective 'truth' behind a given matter, using questions that unveil what is implicitly known or disentangle the contradictions of a person's beliefs.This method is central in cognitive-behavioral coaching, and is used effectively in therapeutic, educational, and leadership settings.Given its pragmatic focus, Socratic questioning has been applied on individuals' specific challenges, goals, and behaviors.However, reflecting on the Socrates persona and the individual and societal challenges of the post-modern society, we suggest that this method could be re-interpreted to serve a twofold, hierarchical purpose in coaching.At the lower-level, and in the short-term, Socratic questioning's goal is to unfold objective truths over given matters and to guide discovery in the interlocutors, as it helps coachees to overcome specific challenges.However, drawing upon a Third Generation Coaching perspective, we suggest a higher-order, long-term purpose of Socratic questioning.Third Generation Coaching claims that meaningful dialogues are collaborative and co-creative in nature and emerge when the dialogue partners experience moments of symmetry and resonance.Notably, Socrates practiced boêtheia (partnership) and maieutikós (midwifery) in his dialogues, clearly denoting his ethics' collaborative and co-creative orientation.Accordingly, the high-order purpose of Socratic questioning is to create partnership, moments of symmetry, and resonance in the dialogue partners, which allows for meaningmaking, self-reflection, shared-reflection, and shift in narrators' perspectives.In this light, Socratic questioning helps foster long-lasting, value-based personal growth in all dialogue partners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".