What Both Sides of the AI Debate Have in Common — and the Risk Neither Is Talking About | with Dr. Laura Rees-Davies
with Dr. Laura Rees-Davies
Dr. Laura Rees-Davies is a Chartered Coaching Psychologist, Senior Lecturer at Cardiff Metropolitan University, and active practicing coach — and she's mid-way through something most researchers don't have the nerve to do: interviewing coaches at every point of the AI adoption spectrum, and following the data wherever it leads. What she's finding surprised even her. In this conversation with Rebecca Rutschmann, Laura shares what 25 qualitative interviews have already revealed: coaches who've built their entire practice around AI and coaches who want nothing to do with it don't disagree on what coaching is for. They carry the same hopes. The same concerns. The same core belief — that coaching exists to help people flourish, to grow, and to eventually not need the coach anymore. The disagreement isn't about values. It's about the one question the whole field is working to answer: what is the actual difference between a human coach and an AI coach? And then there's the risk she doesn't hear enough people talking about. Not coaches being left behind. Coaches moving forward carelessly — using tools that hold sensitive conversations without informed consent, without data protection, without asking what a platform does with what gets said in a session. Or with what gets said about them. She doesn't see the danger in resistance. She sees it in acceleration without guardrails. Laura co-researches with Professor Jonathan Passmore, co-signed the Manifesto for AI in Coaching, and presented on the research panel at the NYU Coaching and Technology Summit 2026. My closing reflection might stay with you long after the episode ends. In this episode, Laura and Rebecca explore: What 25 qualitative interviews have already surfaced — and what surprised Laura most The difference between coaches who are "unskilled and unaware" vs. those who actively choose not to use AI Why "evidence-based" and "research-informed" are not the same thing — and how to tell the difference The democratic promise of AI coaching — and its real limits Why Laura worries less about coaches falling behind, and more about coaches moving forward without protecting their clients or themselves What informed consent really looks like when AI enters the coaching relationship Why the gap between sessions — the discomfort of not having an answer yet — might matter more than we think Resources & Links Manifesto for AI in Coaching: vivalacoaching.com/manifesto Laura's AI in Coaching research survey (with Prof. Jonathan Passmore) Become AI-informed — Rebel Store: vivalacoaching.com All episodes: vivalacoaching.com/vivapodcast Participate in Laura's Research: Laura and Professor Jonathan Passmore are running a quantitative survey on self-efficacy, perceived ethical risk of AI in coaching, and professional identity. They need 250 participants — and want to hear from coaches whether or not you use AI. Listen within the next four weeks and use the survey link above to get involved.
Listen & Show Notes →
