Specifically, if we don’t use a multi-source/multi-method approach then we don’t know if we are generating unbiased information from our single source (coach, client or supervisor) and we don’t know if we are obtaining information about the impact of our single measurement tool on the people we are studying or are obtaining information about the people themselves and the coaching process. For instances, if we only conduct interviews then we might be discovering something about the fear factor: how much do the subjects of our study want to reveal about what is really happening in the process being studied? A study about organizational fear is important, but it doesn’t tell us much about what is really happening in the coaching sessions. Similarly, a questionnaire when used exclusively, may tell us quite a bit about the way that respondents assess the process when given a chance to rate the process using categories and criteria formulated by someone else, but these results tell us very little about how the engagement is actually being perceived. A so-called “phenomenological” perspective cannot be gained from the use of questionnaires, just as generalized conclusions can rarely be generated from the exclusive use of interviews.
While a multi-method study can be logistically challenging, numerous methods are available to those gathering information. I propose that at least ten different methods for are widely available: (1) interviews, (2) observation, (3) participant- observation, (4) archival (document) review, (5) unobtrusive measurement, (6) obtrusive measurement (participant-observation of reactivity), (7) performance reviews, (8) questionnaires, (9) critical incident checklists and (10) general information about comparable problems and programs. Those gathering information are limited only by time and creativity in their use of these information collection tools.
Interviews
Interviewing is one of most widely used and generally appropriate methods of information collection. Interviews can be conducted individually or in small groups. Sometimes they are open ended: the interviewees’ responses to initial questions (which usually are determined ahead of time) dictate the nature and scope of later questions. At other times, the questions all might be specified prior to the interview. Interviews can be conducted in person, by telephone, by email or even via social media. A random sampling of attitudes and perceptions about coaching can also be conducted with limited time and personnel using polling techniques.
Observation
An effective information gathering initiative will often make extensive use of observation when the opportunity is available. Though observations are time consuming and often bump up against the issue of confidentiality, they provide rich insights into the real workings of the process or event being studied. If nothing else, one might observe continuing projects or events that reflect on the milieu of the setting in which the process or event is taking place (for example, spontaneous activities, award celebrations or special events).
Participant-Observation
In some instances, someone gathering information might deem it useful to assume a participant-observer role by becoming actively involved in some event related to the process of event being studied. The participant-observer records not only what she has observed but also her personal reactions to participation in the event.
Archival (Document) Review
Someone gathering information in a systematic and comprehensive manner usually can request copies of pertinent documents regarding the process or event being studies. Some documents should be read carefully, especially those concerning goals, policies and outcomes related to the problem or need that precipitated the initiation of the process or event. Additional documents can be reviewed quickly for broad themes and particularly unique or contradictory perceptions or recommendations.
Download Article 1K Club
