Our Research Pillars
IBC is advocating for the use of six pillars of scientific research to help guide researches and address gaps in the primary literature.
Building a Coherent Science of Behavior Change
The rapid growth of behavior change science reveals the need for the field to address the problems of the 21st century, but it also creates a problem. Rapid growth without struture and clarity fragments the field. Our research is guided by six pillars that ensure rigor, equity, cumulative knowledge, and real-world impact. Together, they form a framework for advancing coaching and behavior change as a scientifically coherent, ethically grounded field.
Pillar one
Feature one
Equity Is Scientific Rigor
Behavior change is not culturally neutral.
Who is studied.
How change is defined.
What counts as evidence.
These are scientific decisions — not secondary considerations.
We advocate for research that:
- Includes diverse populations and real-world contexts
- Examines cultural assumptions embedded in theory and measurement
- Disaggregates data to reveal who benefits — and who does not
- Values lived experience alongside experimental design
Pillar two
Feature two
Defining the Profession Clearly
If we cannot clearly define a behavior change field (e.g. health and well-being coaching), we cannot study it well.
Research credibility depends on:
- Clear scope boundaries
- Defined competencies
- Measurable quality and fidelity
- Ethical safeguards and governance
We prioritize definitional clarity so findings can accumulate — rather than fragment — the field.
Pillar three
Feature three
Making Research Comparable
Too often, studies evaluate “programs” without clearly describing what was delivered.
We advocate for:
- Precise intervention specification
- Transparent reporting of components, dose, delivery, and supervision
- Shared language and taxonomies
- Replicable designs
If an intervention cannot be clearly described, it cannot contribute to cumulative science.
Pillar four
Feature four
Moving Beyond “Does It Work?”
Demonstrating outcomes is not enough.Too often, studies evaluate “programs” without clearly describing what was delivered.
We advocate for clarity around some questions:
- What exactly did the practitioner do?
- Under what conditions did change occur?
We also advocate for researchers to distinguish between:
- Practitioner mechanisms (what is delivered)
- Participant processes (what shifts internally)
- Outcomes (what changes behaviorally or clinically)
Explanatory precision strengthens training, improves equity, and builds sustainable models.
Pillar five
Feature four
Research With Communities, Not On Them
Research distributes power.
It determines:
- What questions matter
- Whose expertise is valued
- Who benefits from findings
We advocate for researchers to prioritize:
- Share governance
- Community-informed research questions
- Capacity building and shared authorship
- Long-term accountability
Scientific integrity requires relational integrity.
Pillar six
Feature four
From Evidence to Integration
If research cannot survive contact with real systems, it cannot transform them. Too often, studies evaluate “programs” without clearly describing what was delivered.
We advocate for researchers to examine:
- Feasibility within clinical and community workflows
- Interprofessional integration
- Financing and sustainability
- Fidelity alongside responsible adaptation
Researchers in our network structure their studies so that promising pilots move systematically toward implementation and long-term impact.