The Challenge: Research on a Nested Problem

I begin by exploring the general challenge: professional coaching operates in complex systems that are highly dynamic and not easy to assess or analyze (particularly with regard to causal relationships). I propose that the assessment of coaching effectiveness is what I describe as a nested problem.  A problem, first of all, is an issue that does not have a simple or single answer (as is the case with a puzzle). It is multi-disciplinary in nature: many different perspectives can be taken in viewing and seeking to analyze a problem. Furthermore, there are often competing and even contradictory goals associated with a problem. Polarities are prevalent and paradox is found in abundance when seeking to understand and successfully address a problem. Nested problems are even more challenging, for there are typically several problems embedded in a nested problem that contribute to the “bigger problem.” For instance, in the field of medicine, there are economic issues (problems) with regard to the trade off (polarity) of costs and quality of care that are nested in the broader issue (problem) of formulating an equitable and sustainable public policy regarding the provision of health care. There are additional issues (problems) nested inside the public policy problem that concern the acceptance of risk regarding new medical procedures: a polarity existing between the value of being sure a new medical procedure is safe and the value of accelerating approval of new procedures so that afflicted patients can receive the most advanced medical care.

I will begin to explore the various layers of the nesting that occurs when seeking to conduct research on professional coaching practices. I begin with the nested problem of defining terms. What is “coaching” and what does it mean to be “professional.” I then turn to a companion problem in the nest—the challenging problem of identifying the players at the table. Who determines what coaching is and what it means to be professional? Furthermore, what are the criteria to be used in assessing the effectiveness of professional coaching practices? When we talk about evidence, how do we know what is and is not evidence? Who is allowed to answer these questions and how do we know they are credible sources? At an even deeper level, what do we know about the agendas that these “credible” decision-makers bring to the table? What about their own personal (and collective) biases, hopes and fears regarding the field of professional coaching.

I will turn secondly to the problem of sampling and sample size which is interwoven with the issue of who sits at the table and what definitions and criteria are employed. We can’t study everyone who receives coaching services. Who do we focus on (in terms of both the coaching-provider population and the client population)? Do we only study “professional” coaching practices? How big of a sample size do we need in order to offer any definitive decisions regarding coaching outcomes? How diverse must this sample be for us to reach any general conclusions or suggest with confidence that certain client populations or certain types of client issues are amendable to professional coaching in general or amenable to specific coaching strategies?