In a new column, we will be asking academic bodies to comment on and share their latest research into coaching and mentoring. In this issue, Sheffield Hallam University looks at the strengths and weaknesses of research in these areas
Differences between coaching and mentoring are the subject of ongoing debate. We examined a sample of 36 recent articles, equally split between coaching and mentoring, and used this to generate our findings (below).
What do the results indicate?
This analysis suggests that both coaching and mentoring research writings have strengths and weaknesses. The research tradition in mentoring is rigorous and thorough in traditional, positivist research terms; however, it tends to focus less on implications for practice. In particular, many of the statistically based studies that are published do not adequately explore the mentoring relationship or effects on other stakeholders, such as managers, scheme sponsors, mentors and supervisors. Furthermore, mentoring studies could benefit from using more robust evaluation models as some sophisticated coaching research already undertakes.
The majority of coaching articles describe case studies focusing on the meaning of the experience for the participants (principally the client). Coaching articles are often insider accounts, written by people who have a stake in the relationship. This has an advantage of giving insights into the dynamics of the coaching intervention, though it can mean that they do not pay attention to alternative explanations for the outcomes observed, and that they tend to emphasise the positive and effective, while ignoring potentially negative data. Many of these studies are in the tradition of evaluation research, written to catch the eye of practitioners and purchasers of coaching. Also, the agenda of many research articles is to confirm or validate the approach of author rather than to explore or identify alternatives.
Future agenda
We suggest that there is much to be gained from coaching and mentoring researchers recognising the strengths and weaknesses of alternative approaches to incorporate into their own approach to research. In future issues, we will examine in more detail particularly instructive examples of published research in this field.
Mentoring research
This type of research:
- Examines interventions intended to counteract disadvantage in employment.
- Is grounded in established theory and research tradition.
- Tends to examine relationships between variables, using statistics to test hypotheses.
- Uses questionnaires to survey a large sample.
- Comes from university researchers, addressing other researchers – and is peer reviewed.
- Explores/seeks to control intervening variables.
- Spells out limitations.
- Is incurious about the nature of mentoring relationships.
- Privileges statistical significance over subjective meaning.
- Only briefly touches on implications for practice and with caveats.
Coaching research
This type of research:
- Is sparse – there are few research-based studies of coaching.
- Focuses on business relevance.
- Claims to focus on improving practice.
- Frequently involves an evaluation study of a particular scheme.
- Often features an insider account by a sponsor or coach.
- Emphasises ROI as the measure of success.
- Uses summaries and examples rather than detailed research protocols.
- Is based on small number of respondents
- Predominantly draws on interviews.
- Does not examine the issue of personal bias.
- Tends to draw on few, if any, other studies to support findings.
David Megginson, Paul Stokes and Ruth Garrett, Coaching and Mentoring
Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University