History and some concepts
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), created in the 70’s, consists of a set of techniques in which the neurological processes, behavioral patterns, and a person’s language are used and organized to achieve better communication and personal development. The term NLP is broadly adopted in education, management, and training fields. However, although evidences of NLP have been published as model for comprehension and learning [
30], few academic works exist on the subject.
NLP claims that people are intrinsically creative and capable, acting according to how they understand and represent the world, instead of how the world is. Literature constantly cites Korzybski’s statement [
31] “the map is not the territory”, a reference to individual understanding that everyone has—mental model—according to his/her experience, beliefs, culture, knowledge, and values.
For Tosey and Mathison [
13], NLP scientific research group members, NLP is presented as an epistemological perspective, with scientific principles which are not usually presented. The first works published by Bandler and Grinder [
9,
10] were based on the models of Fritz Perl, Gestalt founder, Virginia Satir, researcher in family therapy, and Milton Erickson, doctor in medicine, master in psychology, and hypnotherapist recognized worldwide. As a consequence, the epistemological view of NLP presents a roadmap to develop the necessary scientific basis to support its beliefs. The research reported in this paper explores this path by scientifically characterizing the use of preferred representational systems for cognition.
This representational system (or internal representation) is highly dependent on context (i.e., it varies with the situation) [
12]. This way, some people, in specific contexts, may prefer to use one or more basic systems to communicate and learn [
6‐
8]. Most authors in the area recognize the following basic systems [
6‐
8,
10,
12]:
(a)
Visual, that involves internal image creation and the use of seen or observed things, including pictures, diagrams, demonstrations, displays, handouts, films, and flip charts;
(b)
Auditory, that involves sound reminders and information transferred through listening; and
(c)
Kinesthetic, that involves internal feelings of touch, emotions, and physical experience (holding and doing practical hands-on experiences).
We use all of our senses all of the time and, depending on the circumstances, we may focus on one or more of them—for instance, when listening to a favorite piece of music, we may close our eyes to more fully listen and to experience certain feelings. In order to see things more clearly, we might need to close our eyes and visualize the situation, person, or place.
So, we all use each of the senses and each of us also has a Preferred Representational System (PRS), one that we use most when we speak, learn, or communicate in any way. For example, when learning something new, some of us may prefer to see it or imagine it performed, others need to hear how to do it, others need to get a feeling for it, and yet others have to make sense of it. In general, one system is not better than another, and sometimes, it depends on the situation or task that we are learning or doing as to which one or more representational systems might be more effective than another.
Supporters of NLP believe that word predicates let us know what is the person’s state of consciousness. They believe that specific, sensory-based, word predicates are chosen when a person is using a specific representational system. The predicates indicate what portion—of internal representations - they bring into awareness [
10]. Such predicates may be identified and used to improve communication among the analyzed subjects, for example.
One of the major problems in communication, be it informal or technical, is the difficulty to arouse interest on the receiving end, the person who is reading or listening to your message. Many times, the person who receives the message does not assimilate what is being transmitted, be it a simple message or a technical diagram. NLP can then be one approach to improve communication. The challenge lies in identifying the representational system that is being used by the subject and match the same system for empathy construction. Empathy is an emotional response to other person through sharing other’s affective state, as well as it is a cognitive capability to think in other person’s perspective [
32,
33]. The matching consists of identifying the predicates that indicate a representational system and use them, or other predicates that belong to the same system, for communication [
10].
In order to exemplify this matching process, consider the following question “have you seen the logic of the algorithms that I showed you?”, and the following answer “not yet, I am going to examine them carefully, once I get a clear picture of the whole system.” This is a coherent answer to the question from the sensory system matching perspective. The sensory-based words “seen” and “showed” in the first phrase indicate a visual processing, and the response used the same system through the visual sensory words “examine them” and “clear picture”.
In this context, detecting the developers’ representational preferences may enhance the empathy in the team communication, i.e., each member may be more stimulated in his/her Preferred Representational System, enhancing the effectiveness of communication, software comprehension, and the solution of activities of development and maintenance.
Allocating a person in a task, considering his/her technical abilities as well as his/her personality, is essential for the success of any software project. The productivity secret is to adjust the project needs with its members’ personalities. Detecting, for instance, that a system analyst barely uses his/her visual representational system may help solve his/her difficulties with project diagrams or stimulate his/her reallocation to another activity. Many times, a member is lost because of wrong job allocation. A good programmer may become a not-so-good analyst. In other situations, a person’s preferential cognitive system may not match his/her colleagues’ profile, or the way the organization works.
Our research deals with the identification of sensory-based words used by developers in discussion lists. We then use these words to characterize the preferred representational systems of the developers and analyze these against their profile and role in the projects.
Neurolinguistic criticism
NLP experimental research basis is insufficient. The literature in academic journals is minimal, and Thompson et al.’s study [
34] is a good example. There has been virtually no published investigation into how NLP is used in practice. The experimental research consists largely of laboratory-based studies from the 1980’s and 1990’s, which investigated two particular notions from within NLP, the ‘eye movement’ model, and the notion of PRS.
Heap [
35], in particular, has argued that on the basis of the existent studies, these particular claims of NLP cannot be accepted. Heap conducted a meta-analysis of these and appears entirely justified in criticizing the unequivocal claims made in NLP literature. It is notable, however, that Heap’s meta-analysis included many postgraduate dissertations. His bibliography refers only to sources of abstracts of those dissertation studies, not to the dissertations themselves. Thus, his meta-analysis appears based on the reported outcomes of these studies, not on critical appraisal of their methodology or validity.
Einspruch and Forman [
12] and Bostic St.Clair and Grinder [
36] have also argued that the types of study reviewed by Heap are characterized by problems affecting their reliability, including inaccurate understanding of NLP claims and invalid procedures due to (for example) the inadequate training of interviewers, who therefore may not have been competent at the NLP techniques being tested. Heap himself offers only an ‘interim verdict’ and acknowledges Einspruch and Forman’s view that ‘the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated’ [
35].
Given these concerns, for example, Tosey and Mathison [
13] suggest that the existing body of experimental research cannot support definitive conclusions about NLP. It seems clear that there is no substantive support for NLP in this body of experimental research, yet it also seems insufficient to dismiss NLP.
Our study does not test NLP techniques, but rather shows an association between NLP based-measures and developers’ roles and profiles.