Spotting Fake Science in Corporate Training: A Guide to Avoiding Bad Practices
Bryan Barnes
Head of R&D @ Jenson8 | I-O Psychology | Behavioral Insights & Data-Driven Organizational Transformation
In the rapidly evolving field of workplace learning and development (L&D), organizations are increasingly inundated with a barrage of innovative methods, tools, and programs designed to enhance employee skills, engagement, and productivity. However, as a professional who applies behavioral science to workplace learning, I've noticed a concerning trend: not all of these methods are grounded in scientific evidence. The proliferation of pseudoscientific approaches—those lacking empirical support and often relying on anecdotal evidence, vague claims, or misleading language—poses a significant challenge to organizations striving to implement effective L&D programs. The true value of workplace training lies in its scientific foundation, not in trendy but unproven methods. The adoption of such unvalidated methods can lead to wasted resources, ineffective training outcomes, and a potential erosion of trust among employees and stakeholders. This situation necessitates the development of a strong framework that enables L&D professionals to critically evaluate and distinguish between scientifically valid approaches and those that are not, ensuring that organizational investments in employee development are both effective and evidence based.
Understanding Pseudoscience in Learning and Development
Definition and Characteristics of Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience refers to beliefs, theories, or practices that are presented as scientific but lack the empirical evidence, reproducibility, and methodological rigor that characterize true scientific inquiry. The term pseudoscience is derived from the Greek word pseudo, meaning false, and the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge, thus literally translating to "false knowledge."
Key characteristics of pseudoscience include:
The Dangers of Pseudoscience in L&D
Incorporating pseudoscience into corporate training isn't just ineffective—it's a recipe for eroding trust and wasting resources. The use of pseudoscience in workplace L&D programs can have several detrimental effects, including wasted resources, reduced performance, false hope, erosion of trust, mislabeling, perpetuation of myths, and resistance to evidence-based practices. Here’s how it contributes to each of these issues:
Common Pseudoscientific Practices in L&D
One of the most pervasive pseudoscientific practices in L&D is the adoption of learning styles theory. Despite its popularity, learning styles theory has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence and potential to mislead educators and learners. The theory suggests that individuals have preferred ways of processing information and that tailoring educational experiences to these preferences can enhance learning outcomes. However, numerous studies have failed to provide strong empirical support for this idea, and the theory has been labeled a "neuromyth"—a misconception about brain function and learning (Huber & Muller, 2023).
A Framework for Identifying and Avoiding Pseudoscientific Methods: The S.C.I.E.N.C.E. Approach
Effective learning and development starts with distinguishing real science from the false promises of pseudoscience. To help L&D professionals navigate the challenges posed by pseudoscience, I propose the S.C.I.E.N.C.E. framework, a structured and memorable approach to evaluating the credibility of learning and development methods:
Conclusion
The integration of pseudoscientific methods in workplace L&D programs poses significant risks, from wasted resources to erosion of trust among employees. By adopting the S.C.I.E.N.C.E. framework, L&D professionals can critically evaluate the methods they implement, ensuring that their programs are grounded in solid, evidence-based practices. This approach not only safeguards organizational resources but also fosters a culture of trust and continuous improvement, ultimately leading to more effective and impactful employee development initiatives.
Key Takeaways
领英推荐
References
Alhusban, M. I., Alshurafat, H., & Khatatbeh, I. N. (2024). Exploring professional perspectives on integrating generative artificial intelligence into corporate learning and development: An organizational change perspective. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal.
Angeli, L., Okur, ?., Corradini, C., Stolin, M., Huang, Y., Brazier, F. M., & Marchese, M. (2022). Conceptualising resources-aware higher education digital infrastructure through self-hosting: A multi-disciplinary view. Eighth Workshop on Computing within Limits 2022.
Balkar, B., & Karada?, N. (2023). Employee training policies of high revenue companies: Analysis of case examples from Türkiye. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training.
Bebray, S. (2023). Définition de la pseudoscience chez Sven Ove Hansson. Lato Sensu: Revue de la Société de philosophie des sciences.
Bergsteiner, H., & Avery, G. C. (2014). The twin-cycle experiential learning model: Reconceptualising Kolb's theory. Studies in Continuing Education, 36(3), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2014.904783
Bontchev, B. (2011). Learning objects types dependability on styles of learning.
Burton, H., & Gordin, M. P. (2020). Science and pseudoscience. Blood Traces.
Castanelli, D. J., Weller, J. M., Molloy, E., & Bearman, M. (2022). How trainees come to trust supervisors in workplace-based assessment: A grounded theory study. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 97(5), 704-710. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004501
Daniel, R., Dietrich, W., Dekant, W., Greim, H., Heslop-Harrison, P., Berry, C., Boobis, A. R., Hengstler, J. G., & Sharpe, R. M. (2016). Allowing pseudoscience into EU risk assessment processes is eroding public trust in science experts and in science as a whole: The bigger picture. Chemico-Biological Interactions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2016.07.023
Debray, S. (2023). Définition de la pseudoscience chez Sven Ove Hansson. Lato Sensu: Revue de la Société de philosophie des sciences.
Deshmukh, T. T. (2022). Study about graphology: A technique for employee selection. https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/niebm/v5/1853a
Fasce, A. (2021). The scam of pseudoscience. Mètode Revista de difusió de la investigació.
Hansson, S. O. (2024). Scientific expertise is needed to identify pseudoscience. Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum.
Huber, M., & Muller, C. (2023). Is there a learning type?! Revisiting learning-styles theory in view of learning and emotion. European Journal of Education Studies. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v10i3.4688
Jennifer, A. M., Thomas, S. R., & Randall, W. E. (2016). Brain-training pessimism, but applied-memory optimism. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616664716
Katrukha, E. (2020). Definition of pseudoscience in the context of the problem of demarcation of scientific and non-scientific knowledge.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Ammirati, R. J. (2015). Science versus pseudoscience.
Makarenko, S., Oliinyk, N., & Kazakova, T. (2019). Improving the method approach to the rating evaluation of employees as professional career development. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2018-4-5-179-187
McCabe, J. A., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2016). Brain-training pessimism, but applied-memory optimism. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616664716
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210
Robbrecht, M., Van Winckel, M., Norga, K., & Embo, M. (2023). Exploring residents and supervisors' workplace learning needs during postgraduate medical education. International Journal of Medical Education, 14, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.6470.d9ed
Rufino Júnior, R., Classe, T. M., Santos, R. P., & Siqueira, S. (2023). Current risk situation training in industry, and games as a strategy for playful, engaging and motivating training. J. Interact. Syst., 14, 138-156.
Sepulveda, M. E. (2022). Learning styles and technology livelihood education (TLE) competency assessment of junior high school students: Input for a competency-based program. Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.
Shermer, M. (2011). What is pseudoscience?. Scientific American, 305(3), 92. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0911-92
Suriyakrai, S. (2011). Learning styles of pharmacy students: Theory and finding.
Tilfarlio?lu, F. Y. (2017). A new method in education: Lean.
Wong, C. P., Fong, D. Y., Wang, M. P., & Wong, J. Y. (2021). Positive experience and challenges in learning and delivering cognitive behavioral therapy among psychiatric nurses of Hong Kong. Psychologia.
Whitman, G. M. (2023). Learning styles: Lack of research-based evidence. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2023.2203891
L&D Researcher and Entrepreneur
3 个月An excellent article, and much needed. Thanks Bryan.
LATAM Learning Business Value Development | Talent Development for Digital Transformation | Digital Learning Strategies | Tech Industry
3 个月Thanks for sharing Bryan, It’s so necessary to battle the magical thinking in L&D.
Chief Learning Scientist | Skills Nerd | Org Psych | Business Transformation | “Training” Hater | NYSE:EPAM
3 个月Bryan Barnes This makes me so happy! #preach