Coaching research review papers at the start of the twentyâfirst century typically contrast the growth in coaching as an organizational developmental practice with the relatively low level of research and evidence accompanying that growth (see Feldman & Lankau, 2005; KampaâKokesch & Anderson, 2001). Researchers called for an increase in the amount of empirical research, without which they claimed coaching psychology would remain a âprotoscienceâ (Grant & Cavanagh, 2007; Passmore & FilleryâTravis, 2011). Adjectives such as âsolidâ or âhighest qualityâ were used to differentiate quantitative research from any other design, with Furnham (personal correspondence, cited in Grant & Cavanagh, 2007) likening coaching to âalternative medicine,â until it was able to demonstrate through empirical evidence its value.
Yet, there may have been an understandable reason for the absence of large numbers of empirical studies in the early years of coaching psychology. Passmore and FilleryâTravis (2011) detailed a threeâphase model for new domains of inquiry, stating the maturation process that coaching psychology was undergoing typified that experienced in other research areas. The initial phase, where the phenomenon is explored and practitioner experiences shared, is followed by a second phase. Here, Passmore and FilleryâTravis stated:
In this narrative, the prevalence of qualitative research in the early years of coaching psychology was associated with, and arguably a necessary part of, the emergence of this field of knowledge, rather than an inferior research approach that needed to be replaced if coaching psychology were to be taken seriously.
The intervening years have seen Passmore and FilleryâTravis's predicted increase in the number of empirical studies within the field take place, to the point where systematic reviews and metaâanalyses are now being produced (see the introduction to Section IV). In this same time period, voices within the coaching psychology research community have argued for the distinct contribution that qualitative studies can make to advancing our understanding: it is now recast as âotherâ rather than âlesser.â
For instance, Grant (2016a), in considering what should constitute evidence, suggests that qualitative designs, such as case studies, have unique and valuable characteristics that metaâanalyses and randomized controlled trials may not provide. One justification for this viewpoint may be that some legitimate areas of inquiry related to the coaching experience are not appropriate for reductivist approaches: examples include the phenomenon of peak experiences during coaching (HonsovĂĄ & JaroĹĄovĂĄ, 2018) or any critical moments experienced by clients during coaching sessions (de Haan & NieĂ, 2015âincluded in this section). Axiological assumptions of coaching as a valueâladen endeavor can also be seen in Stelter's (2007) argument that social meaningâmaking is a central concept within coaching, and one that should therefore be studied from a phenomenological paradigm.
With the very early years of coaching psychology as a discipline now behind us, qualitative research is accepted as both inherently worthwhile and also complementary to positivist studies. Tooth et al. (2013), in determining the effectiveness of a coaching survey instrument, conclude that certain outcomes of coaching (they cite increases in client selfâefficacy as an example), can indeed be quantified. However, their conclusion about how the impact of coaching should be determined is more nuanced:
Kilburg (2016) goes further in asserting the relevance of quantitative research to coaching. Arguing against Furnham's call for more empirical data, Kilburg states that the biomedical approach, likening executive clients to patients with common symptoms and diagnoses, is not appropriate and that coaching operates in a much more complex and dynamic setting that does not lend itself to such research designs.
Therefore, qualitative studies have a distinct contribution to make in advancing coaching research, theory, and practice. This section features papers with a variety of qualitative research methods, from interpretative phenomenological analysis to grounded theory, and a range of topics, from coaching supervision to how coaches work with emotion. The papers also demonstrate the role that qualitative studies play, such as generating theories and conceptual frameworks, highlighting future research avenues, shedding light on processes and perceptions rather than just outcomes and informing realâworld decisions (examples in this section include scoping coaching supervisorâspecific training and indicating where universityâsituated coaching might create value for students).
Hopefully, with coaching psychology's growing pains as a field of scholarly research in the past, and with the variety of benefits that qualitative studies can generate, Grant (2016b, p. 318) states the time has come to push aside ânefarious dichotomies that posit one [approach] as better than the other.â To have a full understanding of coaching as a phenomenon, and to steal from Grant's article title, âcounting numbers is not enough.â
