Research

Our research explores the patterns and conditions that shape Human-systems coherence across personal, relational, organizational, and societal contexts. Grounded in the Human Systems Coherence framework, including Spiral Pattern Intelligence and Split Coherence, our work integrates insights from psychology, neuroscience, systems thinking, coaching, leadership, and contemplative traditions to develop practical frameworks that support understanding, assessment, and transformation.

Alongside conceptual and theoretical work, we are developing assessment instruments, reflective tools, and applied methodologies to advance research and practice.

We welcome opportunities to collaborate with universities, researchers, healthcare institutions, educational organizations, leadership and learning teams, and other partners interested in applied research, validation studies, pilot projects, or implementation. If our work resonates with your research or practice, we would be delighted to start a conversation.

Ongoing Projects

Coherence as Integrative Capacity:

A Human Systems Architecture for Cross-Domain Coordination

Abstract

Coherence is invoked across psychology, health science, leadership, and contemplative traditions as a marker of effective and integrated human and systemic functioning, yet its definitions — meaning, regulation, alignment, narrative consistency — are disparate, with no shared account of what coordination requires across the full range of experience. This paper proposes a single coordinating architecture as that account. It defines coherence as the capacity to coordinate across inner and outer experience simultaneously, hold genuine difference and tension without resolving it prematurely, and return to that coordination after disruption. The architecture comprises four domain clusters of experience (experiential, meaning and orientation, expression, and relational-systemic), differentiated functional orientations (parts), and a dynamic coordinating capacity (the axis). From this single structure several consequences follow: coherence and fragmentation are situated not as opposite conditions requiring separate frameworks but as dynamic degrees of one coordinating dimension; traditions long separated by disciplinary boundaries are brought into a shared structural language; coherence is reframed as a developable capacity rather than an achieved state; and the human system is positioned as the coordinating centre of the nested and parallel systems it inhabits — a move made possible by treating the relational-systemic domain as a co-equal domain of experience rather than the environment within which coherence is sought. The paper further identifies an unexamined assumption across coherence-adjacent traditions — that developing capacity within one domain produces cross-domain integration automatically — and proposes that where this transfer fails, the gap is structural rather than motivational.

Split Coherence:

A Structural Framework for Hidden Fragmentation

Abstract

Split Coherence describes a structural pattern in which functioning is preserved while coordination across domains of experience is selectively and durably reduced. Existing psychological, clinical, and organizational frameworks largely identify fragmentation through dysfunction, creating a blind spot for fragmentation that coexists with competence, adaptation, and continued performance.

This paper introduces Split Coherence as a framework for understanding uneven coordination across domains of experience, functional orientations (parts), and the capacity for self-referencing coordination (axis). Fragmentation is located not in the absence of capacities, but in reduced access to them and in their failure to enter coordinated response. The paper distinguishes forms of fragmentation occurring within domains, between domains, and at the axis, and describes characteristic configurations through which coordination may be distributed across internal and external dimensions.

Drawing on converging observations from trauma-informed, neuroscientific, neurodiversity, organizational, and societal literatures, the paper argues that phenomena often treated as separate may reflect a common structural pattern: reduced coordination alongside preserved functioning. In doing so, it proposes a conceptual bridge between traditions that have primarily studied coherence and those that have primarily studied fragmentation, treating them as different expressions of a shared structural dimension rather than unrelated phenomena. Split Coherence is proposed not as a diagnosis or population-specific condition, but as a structural lens for understanding fragmentation across individuals and systems. Implications are discussed for assessment, intervention, research, and the conceptual relationship between functioning, coherence, and fragmentation.

These works are currently under process or under review for publication.