Page 50 [50]
HEIDI MOLLER — KATRIN OELLERICH — DENISE HINN — SILJA KOTTE
consultants consult based upon their own skill in a highly selective handling
of scientific knowledge”"”. This results in the much-lamented detachment of
the counselling profession from science.
WORKSHOP: THE UNIVERSITY AS A SERVICE PROVIDER
FOR PRACTITIONERS
The two closed autonomous systems, science and practice, need selective means
for opening up to each other. In the context of an event at which practitioners
and scientists interacted, both systems came into contact. In workshops they
worked on the following topics: they imagined the university as a service¬
providing company which they could mandate with research tasks. “What we
always wanted to know about coaching but were afraid to ask” — This was
the headline chosen by a group of experts for their “research wish-list”. The
results from the small groups are arranged in the following subject areas: 1)
content-related knowledge interest; 2) diagnostic instruments and evaluation
tools; 3) coaching as a profession and representations of coaching; 4) research
approaches and 5) desirable features of the scientific literature.
Content-related knowledge interest
The experts want research on the requirements and/or expertise of a coach;
for instance, how significant are experience, training and personality? Which
ethical attitudes consolidate practical counselling?
Furthermore, the working groups expressed the desire for more process
research: what is actually effective in coaching processes? Which variables play
a role, for example in relation to the effectiveness of different tools in a specific
coaching process and their long-term effects. Experts asked for knowledge
about different indications: when are the various methods relating to various
purposes most effectively engaged, and what benefit do they have in particular
cases? What importance can be attributed to the client’s self-reflection? What
are the effects of coaches’ “mistakes” in unsuccessful processes? What effects
are produced in relation to the coaching duration and the number of coaching
sessions? And where lies the border between efficacy and damage?
17 Ibid., 17.
+ 48 +