Why are you still talking about Maslow? Spotting the academic charlatans in the Psychology of Education

In his seminal papers, Maslow (1943a, 1943b) argued that individuals had basic needs that were hierarchical in nature. These needs were, in order, physiological, safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualisation. The original argument was that individuals could not move from one level of need until another had been satisfied (Maslow, 1943b). Since Maslow, many theorists have offered refinements and alternatives to Maslow’s suggestions. For example, Dweck (2017) has attempted to bring together the range of extant theorising to create a unified model of motivation. She suggests that acceptance, optimal predictability, and competence are basic needs and that these needs lead to four further emergent needs, trust, control, status/ self-esteem and self-coherence. What Dweck’s model helps show us is that there is considerable evidence that there may be many other needs that do not align with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. So, why are students still citing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs’ as the theory they have most encountered? What has Maslow got to do with contemporary motivational theorising and research? Why do we still think Maslow’s theory is relevant? Practitioners and educators need best evidence to transfer knowledge and create the most effective interventions. In this paper, I’ll explain why using Maslow is problematic not because it is misguided, but that motivational theorists have moved the field on to identify more complex explanations behind the fundamental drivers of behaviour. Most importantly, I will argue that citing Maslow is usually a result of lazy thinking and general ignorance of the depth of motivational theorising. If we are to progress knowledge in the Psychology of Education, especially in terms of knowledge transfer, we are duty-bound to respect and represent contemporary theorising. Maslow is a seminal and relevant part of the history of motivation, but anyone still citing his theory as the current explanation of motivated behaviour is probably poorly prepared, does not understand the field, or at worst, an academic charlatan.