Page 58 [58]
OCR
HEIDI MOLLER — KATRIN OELLERICH — DENISE HINN — SILJA KOTTE Research concept In the matter of incentives and exclusion criteria, around 25% of all answers featured the research concept. The participants named content-related criteria (relevance and traceability of the question(s), aims and knowledge acquisition sought) as well as methodical aspects (research design, methods used and evaluation strategies). In relation to the incentives, the relevance of the content, questions and aims were prioritised: questions which are of interest to the coaches themselves and relevant to practice, a clear theoretical foundation of the study or specific content-related ideas such as a clearly limited definition of coaching. The statements about methods and design were however less frequent and phrased in a very general way (e.g. “high quality of study design”). For the statements about exclusion criteria, the opposite was true: coaches mentioned design and method considerably more often than content. In addition to general comments about methodologically questionable designs, they ruled out ‘more invasive’ research methods (audio, video, participatory observation) as well as purely quantitative survey and evaluation strategies. Effort required and (financial) compensation Around 20% of the answers to the two questions related to the effort required in participating in a study. It was particularly common for the coaches to bring up the extra time demands as well as potential additional travel or administrative costs. For the coaches, these represent a significant hindrance in relation to participating in studies and should be as minimal and as clearly defined as possible. Only a very minor proportion of those questioned (2 out of 50) mentioned financial remuneration as an incentive or the lack of such as an exclusion criterion. Question of the interests of coaches and clients About a third of all answers to the two questions asked to what extent the interests of coaches and clients are taken into account in the research. The percentage of such statements was higher in ‘preconditions’ (35% of all statements) than in ‘exclusion criteria’ (30% of all statements). For the coaches these related to anonymity, potential interference in the coaching process by the research and the use of the research for themselves and their clients. Most frequently, coaches + 56 +
