The barriers to a scientific, evidence-based coaching evaluation practice

Miriam Schneider, A. McDowall, David Tee
{"title":"The barriers to a scientific, evidence-based coaching evaluation practice","authors":"Miriam Schneider, A. McDowall, David Tee","doi":"10.22316/poc/07.1.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Workplace coaching has grown in popularity and is increasingly used for a plethora of purposes across organisations. As a growing field, coaching is still in need of a continuing commitment to evidence-based evaluation, especially considering the current unsystematic outcome literature. However, this need for scientific, evidence-based evaluation is not actioned and there is indication that coaching evaluation is even less rigorous in practice. This position paper explores what might be the barriers against a scientific, evidence-based coaching evaluation in practice. Suggestions grounded in the literature are presented with the aim that these might inform future research and practice.","PeriodicalId":353597,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Coaching An International Journal","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Coaching An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22316/poc/07.1.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Workplace coaching has grown in popularity and is increasingly used for a plethora of purposes across organisations. As a growing field, coaching is still in need of a continuing commitment to evidence-based evaluation, especially considering the current unsystematic outcome literature. However, this need for scientific, evidence-based evaluation is not actioned and there is indication that coaching evaluation is even less rigorous in practice. This position paper explores what might be the barriers against a scientific, evidence-based coaching evaluation in practice. Suggestions grounded in the literature are presented with the aim that these might inform future research and practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学的、基于证据的教练评估实践的障碍
职场辅导越来越受欢迎,并越来越多地用于跨组织的各种目的。作为一个不断发展的领域,教练仍然需要继续致力于以证据为基础的评估,特别是考虑到目前的非系统的结果文献。然而,这种对科学的、基于证据的评估的需求并没有被采取行动,有迹象表明,教练评估在实践中甚至不那么严格。这篇立场论文探讨了在实践中科学的、基于证据的教练评估可能存在的障碍。基于文献的建议被提出,目的是这些可能为未来的研究和实践提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Book review: Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging in Coaching Aligning the ontologies of leadership and coaching using Leadership-as-Practice The barriers to a scientific, evidence-based coaching evaluation practice Decolonising reflective practice and supervision ‘I was exhausted, and there was no break at all’: how Black women leadership coaches understood and navigated workplace tensions after the racial reckoning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1