Page 50 [50]
OCR
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 serviceproviding 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 +
