Dianne R. Stober
Fielding Graduate
Institute
If coaching is to mature from a set of techniques to a profession with an accumulating body of knowledge, the time has come to integrate coaching practice and coaching research. The scientist-practitioner model offers an important construct for applying evidence to practice and cultivating a mindset of critical thinking. Adopting this model as an ideal for coaches challenges us to erase any false division between research and practice. Rather it urges us to use both the eye of a scientist and the eye of a practitioner to understand and test our coaching conversations. In doing so, we begin looking for evidence in which to ground our practice and developing the attitude of skepticism and curiosity about what it is we do. Thus we can all become researchers of our methods. This also increases the need and value for rigorous research in coaching beyond our individual experience.
The scientist-practitioner model requires action on a community and an individual level. Community actions include raising standards in education and training, bringing disparate threads of research and scholarship together into a coherent body, identifying areas of research and executing them, fostering the applicability of research to coaching practice, and developing resources for the implementation and dissemination of coaching-specific research. Individual actions rely on adopting the scientist-practitioner model and taking steps to improve our facility in utilizing the full continuum from research to practice.
Once there was a coach who happened to be a researcher too. Following what she’d learned in school, she saw a need in coaching: a study on effectiveness. She designed a nice pilot study and set about finding funding. She was following the research tradition but kept hitting dead ends for those elusive research dollars. She had a coach and she spent much of her coaching conversations bemoaning her lack of success in finding someone to fund this great pilot idea. She blamed it on the funding sources not really understanding coaching. She blamed it on academics for not taking coaching seriously. She blamed it on coaching for being so new and unproven.
One day her coach said, in her gentle but challenging way, “When are you going to stop whining about not having the money and just do it?!” The coach-researcher stopped dead in her tracks. “She just doesn’t understand research,” the researcher thought. So she blamed the coach. Then the coach said something even more impossible: “I want you to have this project, money or no money, underway by September 1.” It was May.
Thus began the story of my first coaching-specific research project. I was the tradition-bound, fully inside-the-box researcher and Shirley Anderson, MCC, was my inspiration. As I began to think about this keynote address it occurred to me that my experience illustrates the growing edge for me and for coaching as an emerging profession. As a coach practitioner and as a coach researcher, I had erected a false divide between the two roles. In my research mode, I had been operating out of what I had been taught in psychology with very little input from what I had learned about “thinking big” from coaching. It required my coach to challenge me to take a different viewpoint for me to start integrating the two.
Similarly, a challenge and opportunity for coaching to advance towards a true profession involves integrating research and practice into a whole. As others have said (Grant, 2003, Laske et al., this issue), the scientist-practitioner (or Boulder) model of psychological training (Raimy, 1950) holds promise in this regard.1 The model has been the source of much debate within psychology (Kennedy & Llewelyn, 2001; Baker & Benjamin, 2000; Belar, 2000; Peterson, 2000; Rice, 1997; Stricker & Trierweiler, 1995), but is a starting point in attempting to forward our emerging profession. The value held by this model is one of applying scientific evidence to practice and cultivating attitudes of skepticism, curiosity, and inquiry regarding practice (Stricker, 2000). It implies an expectation that through scholarship, practice becomes based in evidence and that evidence will over time improve our practice. Research becomes a tool to improve what we do and a source of illumination for understanding what we do.
However, scholarship and research do not exist in a vacuum. Scientific investigation mostly comes from observation and intuitive hunches about some specific content or experience. Evidence-based coaching can only emerge by studying the practice of coaching since a vital source of scholarly hypotheses is the accumulated practical wisdom voiced by coaches. In the interest of using what we know from coaching practice, I would like to use the opportunity of this address to have a coaching conversation about integrating research and practice and our responsibility to take individual actions to further coaching and to build evidence about it.
Like the insight I had when I employed coaching principles to my research, let us directly apply coaching to ourselves as we develop the vision of a scientist-practitioner. Whitmore’s GROW model of coaching (1996) is concise and useful in organizing this discussion. Whitmore structures the coaching conversation as Goals, Reality, Opportunities, Wrap up/what you will do. As we move through each section, I will move across the continuum from coaching research to coaching practice as we integrate what have often been two separate personas into a whole.
If we are to grow beyond seeing coaching through “the eye of the research guy” in one role and “the eye of the coach guy” in another, we must begin to see the value of a scientist-practitioner who uses both eyes. The scientist-practitioner stance can be seen as a pair of glasses through which we view coaching. Without them, we lack clarity and shapes can be indistinct and blurred. With them, we can inspect our practice for what is real (evidence) and what is mirage (hearsay which does not hold up).
Adopting the scientist-practitioner mode brings gaps and blind spots into focus as we grow an emerging profession. There have been calls for research in coaching (Grant 2003, Kilburg 2000, Stober & Parry, in press) and we are now seeing the call being answered. Grant (2003) referenced the sharp increase in publications and dissertations related to coaching in the psychological literature, painting a picture of the beginnings of a body of coaching knowledge. Stober & Parry (in press) propose a framework for coaching research that discusses areas of focus in coaching research (effectiveness and outcome research, research on the coaching relationship, the coaching process, and on client and coach characteristics) and highlights the need for coaching-specific measures and instruments. As we progress in these areas, we will fill in some of the current gaps in our knowledge.
Another goal in our vision as scientist-practitioners pertains to input from practice into topics of research. To insure that coaching research does not become locked in ivory towers (a fairy tale we’d like to avoid), we need to utilize practice regarding the structures and mechanisms of coaching and who we and our clients are. In this way, we invest in designing studies that have direct applicability to practice. For example, research that delineates characteristics of clients who benefit most from coaching would be valuable in targeting marketing efforts and distinguishing between the “coachable” and those who are not. Likewise, findings on necessary conditions for effective coaching relationships would directly impact practice. This is not to say that we should not attend to more basic research, rather we need to make sure that as scientist-practitioners we draw clear links between what we study and how it applies.
On the other end of the continuum, a goal of advancing our education is raised by adopting a scientist-practitioner model. For many coaches, the mention of research design or technical research findings raises fear or boredom. Evidence regarding coaching effectiveness is something for which we clamor, but many of us have inadequate training in how to critically evaluate such research for ourselves. A basic understanding of research design is needed to fully become a scientist-practitioner able to critically evaluate theory and research and to apply evidence as it becomes available to improve one’s own practice. This does not imply that all coaches will conduct their own research studies; rather it is a mindset and training orientation that encourages coaches to base their practice on evidence and to view their individual practice through a critical thinking lens. If as coaches we espouse integrity and high standards in our practice, we owe it to ourselves to get the tools that enable us to practice at the highest level.
Adopting a scientist-practitioner model also requires evolution and development in coach training. Many of the coach training organizations have concentrated on proprietary “how-to” instruction without providing much grounding in theories from other fields that directly apply to coaching (Grant, 2003). We would do well to demand and advocate for more rigorous and robust education which not only discusses how to coach, but informs students why coaching should work based on theory and how coaching does work based on actual empirical research. This will enable us to move away from a “cookbook” approach towards a position of critical thinking and evaluation. It will require open dialogue and collaboration between researchers and coach educators to ground current training models in theory and evidence. Of course this is a process rather than an event, but as we seek to raise the standards in coaching, we will also need to improve and grow in our training.
Overall, by adopting the scientist-practitioner model, we also undertake goals of advancing coaching-specific research and methods, linking research to practice, and improving education and training. Next, we will discuss the current reality regarding these goals.
A groundswell of interest in research on coaching and its contributions to practice has brought us to the possibility of today’s discussion of integrating theory, research, and practice through a scientist-practitioner model. The wonderful electricity generated by last year’s Coaching Research Symposium has sparked a realization among many coach-practitioners that anecdotal information and individual experience alone do not constitute evidence on which we can base a lasting profession. The symposium also gave coach-researchers a sense of hope that a distinct shift towards a more rigorous, evidence-based practice is occurring.
In moving forward, a first step in scholarship is looking at what has come before. While we recognize that coaching as we know it today is on a cutting edge in how it is practiced and applied to individuals and organizations, we have not always acknowledged its roots in other fields and disciplines. Theories and bodies of knowledge that apply to coaching exist in a variety of fields. For example, the social science of psychology contains many theories of human change and growth important to coaching: cognitive and behavioral theories, psychodynamic and person-centered theories, systems theory, developmental and personality theories, to name just a few. Other fields have bodies of knowledge that influence and apply to coaching: business and economics (organizational and management theories, human resource development, etc.), education and adult learning (transformational learning and other learning theories, andragogy, etc.), and philosophy (ontology, dialectics, etc.). It is necessary for coaching scientist-practitioners to develop these links and ground our practice in such theories. A body of coaching-related literature is accumulating that draws these links, although it is spread out among various fields (see Grant, 2003 for an appendix of behavioral literature; Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001 for a literature review of executive coaching; Peltier, 2001; Kilburg, 2000; Fitzgerald & Berger, 2002; Zeus & Skiffington, 2004). This literature is the beginnings of a theoretical and empirical foundation for coaching.
One of the challenges facing scientist-practitioners has been the relative “fuzziness” of coaching as a distinct discipline. We have yet to arrive at an agreed-upon definition of coaching (although we often describe what it is not; as in not psychotherapy, not consulting, not mentoring, etc.). In order to conduct research, one needs to arrive at an operational definition. Kazdin (1980) describes an operational definition as “…refer[ring] to defining a concept on the basis of the specific operations used in the experiment” (p. 69). In the experimental method, this means that the definition of the concept relies on how the concept is being measured. If we extrapolate the language from experiment to the field of coaching, we are asked to define coaching by what we are trying to do as coaches. A number of definitions in coaching practice share the elements of collaboration and facilitation of growth in both internal experience and external behavior for the client (Williams & Davis, 2002, Hudson, 1999, Whitworth et al, 1998, Whitmore, 1992). We might therefore propose a definition that includes these elements: “Coaching is a collaborative process of facilitating a client’s ability to self-direct learning and growth, as evidenced by sustained changes in self-understanding, self-concept, and behavior” (Stober & Parry, in press).
As a scientist-practitioner, one could design research that operationalizes, or measures or circumscribes, each of these components: collaboration, facilitation, self-understanding, self-concept, and behavior. Other scientist-practitioners may formulate these components in different ways. Ultimately, by using the scientific method, we would arrive at a body of knowledge that defines coaching by how it is practiced. By defining what coaching is, researchers can focus studies on testing hypotheses regarding what coaching does. For example, can we demonstrate an effect between goal-setting and life satisfaction as a result of coaching? By answering such research questions, we can arrive at some overarching themes that apply to various forms of coaching.
On a less theoretical and more practical side, there are obstacles to generating studies of coaching. One has been the lack of funding. There are new developments, however, which are encouraging. The International Coach Federation is discussing a foundation to support the growth of coaching. Supporting research is one mission that can greatly contribute to coaching’s credibility and advancement. Other potential improvements in funding sources include the current resurgence of interest in human growth (versus human dysfunction) exemplified by the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), along with the sizable amount of money being raised for such studies. Coaching certainly overlaps with positive psychology and researchers can look for funds in this arena.
Another challenge is building a central body of coaching-specific knowledge. While scientist-practitioners have begun to build a community in coaching, it is quite recent to find coaching specific academic journals. The International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring and the International Journal of Coaching in Organizations are new developments in this regard. Other journals where coaching articles appear are spread out among various disciplines (e.g., Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Journal of Management Development, Training and Development Journal, Organizational Dynamics, Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, and others), and thus articles from these disciplines are not as accessible to a broad group of coaches. Collecting these disparate elements into a coherent body will help highlight the interdisciplinary nature of coaching while supplying structure and cohesion.
So our current reality reflects the growing interest in coaching research, the need for grounding our current practice in the applicable theories and evidence from a number of disciplines, the need for a continuing discussion regarding the definition of coaching, and the need for developing sources for research funding and dissemination of scholarly work. But rooted in the challenges of our current situation are the opportunities for advancement.
One of the important contributions coaching offers our world is a vision for human change that assumes building strengths rather than re-mediating deficits. We, as coaches, strive to forward our clients by challenging them not to settle for being average, but rather to become stellar. Likewise, when we challenge ourselves to become scientist-practitioners, the possibility for a profession founded on growth and possibility and rooted in critical thinking and assessment becomes real with no false divisions between theory, research, and practice.
In order to reduce the potential for divisions, we have discussed the need for training to rise to a higher standard. Likewise, we also need research to be comprehensible in terms of language. Those of us involved in research are prone to leave our findings languishing in jargon inaccessible to anyone outside our niche. This is not to say that technical language has no value, rather it is important also to translate that technical language into applicable and teachable forms. The impact of our research, both within the coaching community and in the broader world, will increase as we learn to speak more plainly.
On a more individual level, many coach-researchers approach their research within the tradition in which they were trained, whether that is psychology, management, organizational development, adult learning, etc. That tradition may keep us from creatively implementing or executing research in a new area of study, such as coaching. My opening story illustrates potential blocks that can impede our vision as scientist-practitioners. The solution? Get a coach! If as researchers we have hypotheses that coaching works (otherwise, why study it?), why not use these frameworks in our own professional lives? As long as we utilize scholarly methods to maintain objectivity about our research, we only benefit from using processes that forward our thinking and action.
Opportunities lie in the essentially humanistic, growth-oriented stance of coaching and in our chance to integrate scientific evidence into our practice. The structure of coaching itself is an opportunity for coach-researchers to grow in the ability to creatively execute research projects and plainly articulate our findings to the coaching community and broader society. What lies ahead is the challenge for each of us and our community to take action.
As a community of scientist-practitioners-in-development, today we have the opportunity to embark upon individual and group action. As we focus on our goal of adopting the scientist-practitioner model by bringing the coaching eye and the research eye together, a multitude of community actions are possible. These include:
1. Dialogue between coach researchers, academic professionals, coach professional associations, and coach training organizations regarding the role of the scientist-practitioner model in raising the standards for education and training. This could take the form of a conference or summit on coaching training.
2. Pulling together theories and research evidence across related disciplines into a coherent body of knowledge applicable to coaching.
3. Continuing a rigorous discussion of the definition of coaching. It will be through dialogue that we will develop more distinct and specific boundaries of “coaching.”
4. Mapping out and conducting coaching-specific research such as coaching effectiveness and outcomes, client characteristics, coach characteristics, the coaching relationship or alliance, organizational and social system factors in coaching, and mechanisms and structures of coaching process.
5. Fostering dialogue on the applicability of research to practice and the role this plays in the development of evidence-based coaching.
6. Developing coaching-specific outlets for publication of scholarly work.
7. Identifying sources of funding for coaching research.
The next question becomes one of identifying individual actions we each will take. As we have learned in our coaching, we do not need to know our exact destination, we just need the very next step to be clear. In adopting the scientist-practitioner model, where is our individual growing edge? Do we need to seek additional education, asking more from our training? Do we need to engage other practitioners in conversation to generate the hypotheses we want to test as researchers? Do we need to evaluate our assumptions about how to conduct research, whether that is in terms of methodologies, measures, or how we execute a piece of research? What do we need to learn from our “coaching eye” or from our “research eye”? The time has come for us to move beyond the artificial divisions of practice and research and adopt the 20/20 vision afforded by the scientist-practitioner model.
As I reflect upon my own development over the past several years, I see my experience of being challenged to get on with it by my coach as a pivot point for integrating coaching practice with my thinking about coaching research. As individual experience can sometimes reflect group process, I see parallels in the evolution of coaching. The broader community of coaches is at a turning point of recognizing the need and value of coaching-specific research and theory. Thus there is the possibility of raising our practice to a higher level, which in turn will stimulate more sophisticated scholarly investigation. Each of us has a contribution to make that will further the growth of coaching into a vibrant profession. By developing strength in both of our “eyes” as scientist-practitioners, we can envision the future of an empirically and theoretically solid practice of coaching with more effectiveness, credibility, and success.
Baker, D. B., & Benjamin, Jr., L. T. (2000). The affirmation of the scientist-practitioner: A look back at Boulder. American Psychologist, 55, 241-247.
Belar, C. D. (2000). Scientist-Practioner ≠ Science + Practice: Boulder is bolder. American Psychologist, 55, 249-250.
Elliott, R., & James, E. (1989). Varieties of client experience in psychotherapy: An analysis of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 443-467.
Fitzgerald, C., & Berger, J. G. (Eds.). (2002). Executive coaching: Practices and perspectives. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishers.
Grant, A. (2003). Keeping up with the cheese! Research as a foundation for professional coaching of the future. In I.F. Stein & L.A. Belsten (Eds.), First ICF Coaching Research Symposium, 1-19. Mooresville, NC: Paw Print Press.
Kennedy, P., & Llewelyn, S. (2001). Does the future belong to the scientist-practitioner? Psychologist, 14, 74-78.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 134-144.
Laske, O., Stober, D. R., & Edwards, J. E. (2004). What is, and why should we care about, evidence-based coaching? In I.F. Stein, F. Campone, & L.J. Page (Eds.), Second ICF Coaching Research Symposium, 169-174. Washington, DC: International Coach Federation.
McGonagill, G. (2002). The coach as reflective practitioner. In C. Fitzgerald & J. G. Berger (Eds.) Executive coaching: Practices & perspectives, 59-85, Palo Alto: Davies-Black Publishers.
Peterson, D. R. (2000). Scientist-Practitioner or Scientific Practitioner? American Psychologist, 55, 252-253.
Rice, C. E. (1997). Scenarios: The scientist-practitioner split and the future of psychology. American Psychologist, 52, 1173-1181.
Schön, D. (1987). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. (1982). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5.
Stober, D. R., & Parry, C. (in press). Current challenges and future directions in coaching research. In A.M. Grant, M.J. Cavanagh, & T. Kemp, Evidence-based coaching (Vol. 1): Contributions form the Behavioral Sciences. Sydney, Australia: Australian Academic Press.
Stricker, G. (2000). The scientist-practitioner model: Gandhi was right again.
American Psychologist, 55, 253-254.
Stricker, G., & Trierweiler, S. J. (1995). The local clinical scientist: A bridge between science and practice. American Psychologist, 50, 995-1002.
Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance. London: Nicholas Brealy.
Zeus, P., & Skiffington, S. (2004). Behavioral coaching: How to build sustainable personal and organizational strength. McGraw-Hill.
A related model of practice is that of the reflective practitioner (Schön, 1987, 1982). In Schön’s view, practitioners who are aware of how and when they apply particular methods are better able to treat their approach as a test situation and thus are able to improve their skill and method because of this reflection. McGonagill (2002) has eloquently applied this model of practice to his own coaching in his chapter, “The Coach as Reflective Practitioner” in Fitzgerald and Berger (2002). Coaching, as an emerging profession, can benefit from a community discussion in creating our own language and model of practice which engages a mindset of reflection on, curiosity and skepticism about, and testing of our methods.