We find many of these same dynamics operating in the professionalization of coaching. As the field of coaching has emerged over the past 20-30 years and as attempts have been made to regulate entrance into the field, the term “professional” has been used with increased frequency to distinguish those who are doing coaching without much training or any certification from those who have received approved training and have obtained certification. In recent years, the professionalization of coaching has been undertaken, with some controversy, by the International Coaching Federation. Associations have also been formed to certify and monitor coach training programs. Some observers of the coaching field have even suggested that we may soon find that coaching certification will require not only graduation from an approved coach training program, but also a Masters-level degree from an approved graduation program that focuses on coaching theory and practices. Thus, when we explore the challenges associate with research about professional coaching, we have to address the rather knotty issue of determining who is being studied. Do we include coaching services that are being provided by practitioners without certification? Should the research findings be used to further refine the criteria for determining certification? Who do we exclude and which perspectives on coaching do we disallow? And, as I am about to explore, who gets to sit at the decision-making table and who is excluded?

Who is Sitting at the Table?

There is a revolution (or at least a readjustment) going on in the field of applied economics, especially as it begins to interact with the fields of cognitive psychology and neurobiology. This revolution often goes by the name, “behavioral economics,” and it is based in part on recognition that traditional economic theory, with an emphasis on rational decision-making and self-correcting economic dynamics, is to be challenged. (Ariely, 2008; Kahneman, 2011) One of the key points made by the behavioral scientists is that the criteria for assessing outcomes may be more important than the actual assessment that is being done. They write about the processes being engaged to determine the criteria (often focusing on seemingly irrational process such as the use of irrelevant “anchor points” to determine judgmental criteria). The behavioral economics scientists also note at an even more basic level, that it is important to identify the participants in any decision-making group that is formed to determine the criteria. For instance, who determines criteria for identifying the economic health of a country or the level of social equity or prosperity in the country (leading some behavioral economists to challenge the use of GNP as a primary criterion)? Who is left out of the discussion and decision-making process, and, in turn, what values and perspectives are ignored during this process?