I really enjoyed the paper, thank you. It mentions that further study is needed, is this on the cards? I also wonder how one would evaluate the quality of insights developed for coaches and trainers of coaching if Clean Language Interviewing, (CLI), was compared with a different form of qualitative interviewing?
(Posted by James Lawley, 17 Dec 2015)
Yes, Bruce, there is more research to be published hopefully next year but on a parallel topic: a comparison of expert-assessor ratings of coaches, the coaches' self-rating, and the clients' evaluation of the session (described in a Clean Language interview). We examine the whole notion of 'competency' assessment.
On your second point, "quality of insight" would be a difficult phenomenon to measure/assess, especially since, for me, it needs to be related to outcome. While clients almost always rave about the insights gained in a coaching session, "insight doe not equal foresight". I like to know what effect in the person's life the insight has. I'd put money on the relationship between the two being non-linear. In other words, a 'small' insight could lead to a 'big' effect, and vice versa. In which case, how to define the "quality" of an insight?
Some of Jonathan Lloyd's PhD research was on the richness of data gathered in a CL interview compared to more traditional methods. He concluded "The profound findings that Clean Language, focusing on memory and metaphor, can increase the resultant amount of meaning by a factor of five." (The Use of Metaphor in Counselling and Qualitative Research Interviews, 2011, available at http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/264/)
Do let me know if you find anything on the subject of relative quality of insights.