The evolution of developmental psychology frameworks and assessment tools

Creating a thread here to focus on some of the fundamentals in the notion of "development":

A quick outline of the post: Initially looking at the frameworks and assessment tools that have gained extensive following in the consulting and coaching worlds, comparisons of ego vs cognitive development are referred to. However, taking into consideration the controversies of hierarchical frameworks, a both-and proposal is presented based on my own journey in this field, for "development" and the field of developmental psychology to be seen in terms of a liminal dynamic across the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives; convergent dimensions of cognitive development (3rd person) can therefore be counterbalanced by aesthetic (1st person) perspectives, to create a deeper "Dialogos" (2nd person).

Initially following on from Rufus' mentioning his training with Lectica.org and their Foundations of Lectica Assessments (FOLA), this post is a reference to my own inquiry with a very high-level view of the different schools of adult developmental psychology, and latest research on comparing models. Lectica is in the post-Piagetian school, building on more recent work in Dynamic Skill theory from Kurt Fischer, and model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) from Michael Commons (here Rufus can give the better overview!).

In parallel there have been important developments in 'Ego' stage development, from the likes of Robert Kegan, Bill Torbert, Suzanne Cook-Greuter etc., that seems to take a more holistic approach to capturing the meaning-making patterns of an individual, and equally presenting the ego's adult pathway in a hierarchical path - leading to more and more leadership coaching referring to 'Vertical Development'. It is upon more generally the ego development models that initiatives such as the Inner Developmental Goals were launched.

I also have a particular interest in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, and James Fowler's stages of faith (not just in religious terms, but 'other-than-self').

Jonathan Reams and Aiden Thornton for me are two important voices in an independent and thorough critique of where we are at with the contrasting methods and frameworks of development, comparing the above as 'hard-stage' models and 'soft-stage' models. Aiden has been going deep with his PhD thesis in examining if these tools are measuring different things, and their reliability. Jonathan published a review of Aiden's work and then Aiden replied - both published in the final edition of the Integral Review, and attached here (INTEGRAL REVIEW September 2023 Vol. 18, No. 1).

Just one extract from Aiden's paper: "If there is only an approximate correspondence between ego development stages and stages of hierarchical complexity, then this implies that hierarchical integrations do not fully – or perhaps adequately – account for the transformation of performance between successive stages. This may also relitigate considerations about the logic that underpins the ego development scale and the basis for distinguishing between adjacent stages (Cook-Greuter, 1990; Habermas, 1979; Noam, 1993)." ...that gives a flavour as to how much is still up for debate and understanding!

All this to say, that my own inquiry (having piloted and promoted Lectica in the UK from 2009 and trained as a certified Lectica coach in 2015), leads me to reflect on how the developmental models are certainly pointing to structural aspects of our psyche (e.g. the parts), but that contrasts with an aesthetic lens of the "whole".

We are in the contentious debate from people such as Nora Bateson (seemingly categorically anti-stage) and Dave Snowden (willing to consider stages, but not hierarchically), and yet I don't hear so far an exploration of the movement BETWEEN the hierarchical (parts) and the aesthetic (whole). I've had a first go at developing this inquiry in this LinkedIn post and GDoc paper: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/john-oliver-bb01a_reframing-the-controversies-in-developmental-activity-6987746415879798784-RRX_?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

My main thrust is holding developmental psychology frameworks in the context of 'cognitive anthropology' - recognising valid hierarchical patterns of cognition in the 3rd person, but that we can gain a lot by simultaneously holding the 1st and 2nd person. From that, we can concentrate on what are the movements between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives, versus getting stuck on the 3rd person validity debates. Developmental psychology becomes then a grammar for our future Dialogos (taking at two levels there references from John Vervaeke!). My intuition is that the 1st person "aesthetic" is the least discussed in the developmental community....and hence my own explorations in the artistic and creative experience (www.tyler.world).

How might the 'dynamics' between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person (in other words integrating the Transcendentals, or looking at the liminalities across the Integral Quadrants contribute to the developmental framework discussions and our "sensemaking" of poly crisis hyper objects?!

I'd love to hear your thoughts!

PS - I've just read a book by Webb Keane, called 'Ethical Life', and the structure of his book being consciously 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, echoed exactly the above...pointing perhaps in the same direction

Jonathan Reams vol_18_no_1_reams_review_of_facing_the_complexity_gap.pdf

Aiden Thornton vol_18_no_1_thornton_response_to_reams_review_of_facing_the_complexity_gap.pdf

Originally posted by @baouroux in https://github.com/life-itself/community/discussions/888#discussioncomment-8168901

life-itself / developmentalspaces.org

The evolution of developmental psychology frameworks and assessment tools #30