Specifically, we suggest that the answer may have to do with establishing a common set of paradigms and a database that is sufficiently large and diverse to warrant conclusions that are robust (if not definitive). We are in need of some kind of taxonomy or at least stable set of terms and definitions so that the findings are anchored in a base of shared understanding among those working in the field (as professional coaches, trainers of coaches, coaching authors, and those doing the research). This is about taking up the next stages of the work of the International Coaching Research Forum and the Dublin Declaration.
Research on Coaching: Five Articles
As we did in Issue Two (with the Lew Stern interview), we turn first to the wisdom and recommendations offered by one of the major researchers in the field of professional coaching: Francine Campone. She comments on what it takes for good research to be done, describes what a “culture of research” would look like in the field of professional coaching, and offers a brief case study of her own work with several colleagues (based on the remarkable, collaborative research on psychotherapy led by David Orlinksy at the University of Chicago). Francine’s study (Campone and Awal, 2012) focused on the reasons why someone would enter the field of professional coaching and is based on results from a survey completed by more than 170 coaching practitioners.
Francine Campone: Real World Coaching: Real World Research
As the co-editors of The Future of Coaching, we not only commend the work done by Dr. Campone and her colleagues, we have also joined with the Library of Professional Coaching (LPC) in a commitment to extending her study–by gathering additional data (using her survey questionnaire) and initiating comparable studies on other aspects of the coaching profession. We will soon be announcing further details regarding these additional studies and will be inviting our readers and the users of LPC (and their colleagues) to complete the survey.
We turn next to both a look backwards and a look forward regarding research on coaching. Our look backwards is to a 2005 article prepared for the International Journal of Coaching in Organizations by one of the pioneers in the field, Vance Caesar, and his colleague, Leslie Evans. They review then-current themes in coaching research and offer a methodological critique. As we consider their work (written almost a decade ago), it is worth asking: (1) how have we done since 2005, (2) have their methodological concerns been adequately addressed, and (3) what might a review in 2014 look like? While the field of professional coaching (by many accounts) is still in its early adolescence, there is already a history that must not be ignored if we aren’t to repeat the same mistakes.
As we look to the future of coaching research, there are several fundamental concerns that must be addressed. First, are we even clear about what the term “professional coaching” means and doesn’t mean? What are differences in the definition of this term and what coaches actually do? Jonathan Sibley has conducted research on the ways people in the field conceive of coaching and he writes about his research in this issue.
Jonathan Sibley: What is Coaching? What Isn’t Coaching? Where are the Boundaries?
One of us [WB] pushes even further in the fourth article, asking: Do research findings make any difference? Our readers are invited to consider ways in which research outcomes are actually influencing coaching practices. Could the research findings be more influential with regard to professional coaching practices if we were engaging all of the four major knowledge-utilization strategies described in this article?
William Bergquist: Evidence-Based Coaching–Does the Evidence Make Any Difference?
1K Club
