Choose a recent piece of research that you have read and
Analyse it against the frameworks provided in this chapter.
What strengths do you see in the research in the light of this chapter?
What weaknesses are highlighted?
- Instructor Guidance:
- More advanced questions to promote discussion and thought
- How far do you agree that an individuals commitment to a particular research tradition leads them to ignore and downplay research in other traditions?
How far does your research commitment leave room for you to embrace others approaches?
In term of answering this Research Question, you will need to focus on Chapter 1 – “The meaning of coaching and mentoring”.
Here is the Chapter overview below:
This chapter traces the historical discourses related to mentoring and coaching and relates them to a contemporary view on coaching and mentoring discourses (Western, 2012).
It argues that the meanings associated with coaching and mentoring are changing and that new hybrid versions of coaching and mentoring are emerging in practice (Stokes et al. 2020, Stelter, 2019).
- The research in this chapter is drawn from a substantial number of historical and contemporary sources. The chapter helps to explain the wide discrepancies in meaning found in current practice. We argue that there are many dimensions that affect our understanding of the terms coaching and mentoring. These include the intended purpose of coaching or mentoring; the nature of the relationship between coach and coachee or mentee and mentor; the timeframe available and the skills employed in the facilitated conversation (Stokes et al. 2020).
- It also includes contextual factors such as the learning context; economic context; temporal context and sociocultural context (Stokes et al. 2020). We develop the themes identified here in later chapters in the book.
by Sachiko Ueda on Wednesday, August 31, 2022, 9:13 AMNumber of replies: 1My opinion of the question: What personal traits determine whether coaching is effective in improving performance? Is that The attribute-treatment interaction (ATI) theoretical processes, which contend that learner differences will affect the results from certain development treatments, have traditionally been used to explore the significance of individual variations in learning and development at work.The research I read discovered that, in terms of self-rated performance, coaching was most beneficial for people who were high in openness, low in CSEs, and high in avoidant orientation to goals, although we found no significant effects on supervisor ratings of performance by examining the interaction of coaching with individual differences of coaches across multiple time points and compared to a control group. The possibility that coaching can be a potentially effective development technique for people who might not respond as well to other types of instructional learning (i.e., those with low CSEs and high avoidant orientation to goals) was one of our findings that were especially encouraging. To put it another way, those who seemed to benefit from coaching were likely those who most needed a type of development intervention that fit their needs. The scenario mentioned by Jones et al. (2019) is a nice illustration of the positivistic branch of coaching and mentoring research. The advantage of this approach is that it enables academics to make precise, fact-based statements about how coaching affects certain populations (Dr Rebecca J. Jones) It is quiet, however, on the ‘lifeworlds’ of the coaches and coachees, including how they saw the nature of their connection, the influence of the coaching, and what they thought the coaching to be. Additionally, there isn’t a lot of analysis or review of the coaching procedure (the GROW model) or how it was carried out between the participants. To be honest, the writers did not intend for us to concentrate on these issues.Therefore, It is one of the big weaknesses of this research. In conclusion, I really agree with the research that coaches’ nature is important for the coaching result, I also want to say we should think about coaches’ nature and their relationship with them. Reference: Jones, R.J., Woods, S.A. and Zhou, Y. (2019) The effects of coachee personality and goal orientation on performance improvement following coaching: A controlled field experiment, Applied Psychology: An International Review. DOI: 1111/apps.12218. 392 words