Coaching as epistemological positioning - there is no view from nowhere

Why there is no “view from nowhere” (and why that’s good news for coaches)

We all take an epistemological position, whether we have reflected on it or not. Epistemo-what? I hear you say and “how is that relevant for coaching?”  Let me explain. The philosophical discipline of “epistemology” deals with how we know what we know and how something comes to count as true. Examples could be: proven facts, justified beliefs, lived experience or consensus, to mention a few. Here’s how thinking about our epistemological position may be useful for coaches:

The world of molecules

Modern science grew up with a powerful idea: if we observe carefully enough, measure precisely enough, and remove personal bias, we can describe the world “as it really is.” An objective truth. A view from nowhere.

This works remarkably well when we study planets, molecules, or falling apples. Even then, what we observe depends on what we decide to look for, where we draw boundaries, and which methods we agree to call “scientific.” Still, for the natural sciences, the payoff has been enormous. Humanity has benefitted immensely from the scientific method.

The world of meaning

Coaching deals with meaning, relationships, hopes, fears, roles, and expectations. These are not stable objects you can weigh or isolate. They are shaped by culture, language, power, history, and context. A scientific approach to meaning is very difficult. There simply cannot be one meaning that is valid for all people in all contexts. A description of the world (of the client) “as it really is” is impossible.

When a client says:

• “I want to be more confident”

• “I need better leadership presence”

• “This team doesn’t work”

there is no single, objective truth hiding behind the words, waiting for the coach to uncover it like a fossil. There are many possible meanings, all locally valid within the client’s world.

Why “the one right answer” fails in coaching

In a global, intercultural coaching landscape, the idea that there is one correct diagnosis and one best solution becomes shaky fast.

Imagine a coach who:

• decides what the client’s real problem is,

• classifies it,

• prescribes a solution.

Most accreditation bodies would call that consulting or therapy, not coaching. And ethically, it puts the coach in the role of expert over the client’s life which is neither empowering nor respectful.

The coaching alternative: curious not-knowing

Coaching takes a different epistemological stance which cannot be about the one right solution, the one right depiction of reality with predictive powers (which is what happened in the science of the past).

A coach:

• does not assume privileged access to truth,

• stays curious about how the client makes sense of their world,

• offers observations lightly, without attachment,

• treats meaning as something co-created, not discovered.

This is often called a “not-knowing position”, but it’s not ignorance. It’s disciplined humility. A coach might still offer their intuitions and observations but they do not insist they are right.

What this epistemological stance looks like in practice:

Here are some everyday coaching moves that reflect a social constructionist stance:

• You ask for meanings, not causes

“What does ‘confidence’ look like in your context?” instead of “Why are you insecure?”

• You treat problems as descriptions, not facts

“Suppose this problem did not occur, what would be happening instead?”

• You locate standards socially

“Who would notice an improvment?”

“According to whom is this a success?”

• You offer observations as invitations

“I’m noticing... . Tell me if it is relevant or not?”

• You privilege usefulness over correctness

“Which way of looking at this helps you move forward?”

Coaching has always been post-modern (even if it forgets)

Interestingly, coaching practice has always leaned this way, even when theories borrow modernist psychology language about traits, stages, or internal mechanisms.

In actual sessions, good coaches already:

• think with clients, not about them,

• adapt to context,

• avoid universal prescriptions.

A social constructionist lens simply makes this explicit and coherent.

Why this matters now

Holding a plurality of truths is not just philosophically elegant. It is:

• more realistic in complex systems,

• more ethical in power-sensitive relationships,

• more effective in diverse, global contexts,

• more respectful of clients as experts in their own lives.

Coaching without a “view from nowhere” doesn’t weaken the profession. It grounds it.

And perhaps most importantly, it allows coaching to remain what it does best:

a space where new meanings can be built, one conversation at a time.

If you are interested in philosophical musings, hanging out with a bunch of interesting people or just have questions about our courses, why not join us for a free meetup and exchange?

‍