If one is at all interested in a broader assessment of coaching impact, then the data sources must be expanded to include those who indirectly benefit from the coaching process. I return to the concept of the complex environment in which most coaching takes place. The environment is complex (and not just complicated) because everything is connected to everything else. Thus, coaching research must eventually address these broader, systemic issues. Evidence of coaching impact must extend beyond the boundaries of coach and client. I will propose several ways in which systemic studies might be conducted in my Issue Three essay.

In determining who is to be studied, we also must return to the issue of professionalization. Do we study only those coaching practices that are being provided by certified coaches? Does this exclude the exploration of nontraditional practices? If the evidence is being collected only from “certified” sources then are we likely to find that existing paradigms of practice are being reinforced and alternative paradigms are being ignored or evaluated through very biased lenses? The behavioral economists push even deeper into this issue. (e.g. Kahneman, 2011). They suggest that we often change the question we are posing when we either don’t like the answer to our original question or can’t find an adequate answer. What about the question regarding whether or not specific coaching practices are effective when addressing specific issues being brought forward by the coaching client?

If we restrict our study population only to those coaching practices being provided by certified coaches (or being offered only in conjunction with specific training programs or graduate programs at major universities), then have we changed the question? Are we now asking: “which of the currently approved coaching strategies are most effective in working with a circumscribed set of issues?” Or are we now really asking a much more politically and economically-charged question: “how can we justify the restriction of professional coaching practices to those who are certified or hold an advanced degree in a field related to coaching?” How do we continue to promote innovation and improvement in the field of coaching without opening up the sample populations? How do we ensure that specific populations of coaches and clients aren’t being excluded because of social-economic status, position on an organization chart, or (even worse) gender, race, ethnicity or abilities?