The small-scale quantitative research projects on professional coaching will rarely yield credible data. Without major funding, isolated projects are usually a waste of time. On the other hand, the small and highly focused qualitative study is feasible—even without major funding. This type of research project, often framed as a case study, can be quite valuable, though it is important (and should be obvious) that definitive conclusions regarding evidence of coaching effectiveness can’t be generated from these studies. The focus of qualitative studies should be placed on trying to understand the nature of specific coaching practices, rather than on trying to demonstrate that specific coaching practices are effective. Both research goals are very important. It is not enough to know that coaching does work. It is also important to understand why certain kinds of coaching work when addressing specific kinds of coaching issues. No one qualitative study will successfully address the second of these two questions, but each study helps—particularly if framed by a shared coaching taxonomy (or at least shared language regarding coaching strategies and practices).

The other big challenge is to identify participants in the research project. Do we study both the coaches and the clients—as well as others impacted by the coaching process? Many years ago, the famous psychotherapy, Irvin Yalom, conducted a study in which both he, as psychotherapist, and his patient wrote in their journal after each session regarding their shared psychotherapy experiences. Yalom (1991) discovered that the accounts written down by himself, as therapist, and his client were quite different. I suspect that the same holds true for the coach and client. They are likely to identify quite different points in the coaching session as being important and may even convey quite different stories about what happened during a specific session. Perhaps most importantly, they are likely to use quite different criteria in determining the level of success and the outcomes of any one coaching session—unless the coaching strategy is one in which considerable attention is given to specific outcomes that can be and are assessed at the end of each coaching session. Even when specific (often behavioral) outcomes are the focus of the coaching, I suspect in many instances that both the behavioral coach and her client (if candid in their appraisals) will reveal quite a bit about what occurred in each session that goes beyond the scope of the identified behavioral outcomes.  This is only a suspicion on my part: several rich research questions can be derived to address the validity of this suspicion.