Whilst I have argued that Transformative Learning is an appropriate lens through which to explore, understand and make sense of, the learning in coaching, it is useful to be aware of some issues. Critics suggest the idea of the phases is unrealistic – can’t transformation take less time and effort than this? Do all the phases have to be part of the transformation (www.transformativelearningtheory.com)? Others argue the theory focuses too much on the individual and only in Western society (Kreber 2004). More specifically, Kreber (2004: 33) suggests that, whilst Mezirow borrows his ideas from Habermas, he has been highly selective in that process and therefore ‘fails to maintain the essential link between the meaning of experience and the context in which it arises’. Furthermore, Mezirow’s notion of critical reflection can at times seem superficial and is isolated from wider social, political and economic contexts and their influence on the individual (Kreber 2004). Mezirow developed his theory from a study of women returning to work in the 1970s. Perhaps these women were responding to societal changes for women at that time (Newman 2012), and not what Mezirow (1991) suggests was a life-changing event. Is change not just a natural process in life – why put a theory on it?
Mezirow’s theory generally has a positive slant in that it encourages emanicipation and autonomy; however, much of the language seems negative. Descriptions discuss ‘being caught’ or ‘imprisoned’ in our history, ‘escaping’ from it and ‘breaking free’. I suggest these descriptions may be off-putting to coaches thinking of pursuing the theory as a means of promoting positive change.
Might coachees just use the forum as a listening ear and not come to make any change? It is important in peer-coaching at the IOE to be more specific about its purpose.
The process of transformation refers to movement over a long period of time (Mezirow 1978). Contrary to this, Hawkins model of transformational coaching
suggests that for coaching to have lasting effects, the transformation should begin in the coaching session (Hawkins and Smith 2010). Within this research, it would be impossible to affirm transformation from just one session - a longitudinal study may in some way help to confirm or indeed deny this. To acknowledge that coachees are on the ‘transformational spectrum’ is a good starting point (Snyder 2008: 168). None of the conversations contained evidence of all phases.
Learning involves taking risks and perhaps going through periods of pain and
frustration (Bion 1962). Moving from ‘not knowing to knowing’ can involve anxiety and risk-taking (Bibby 2009: 44). It is useful for our practice to recognise that
transformative learning can be a ‘threatening emotional experience’ (Mezirow 2000: 6). If it forces participants to explore previously long-held beliefs and values, reframe them and move forward, participants may be left feeling vulnerable (Young and Dowling 2012). The transformational journey may also involve tensions, reverting to old familiar ways, failure and self deception (Mezirow 1981). ‘The Grieving Soul in the Transformation Process’ is useful in making sense of this. Transformation, put
simply, requires changing an old way of thinking into a ‘new way of seeing or doing’ (Scott 1997: 41). It suggests leaving an old way of life behind and moving onto pastures new. This may involve ‘grieving’ for the old way and leaving one’s old self behind, coming to terms with new ways of thinking and living life, whether
Although the grieving is painful and inevitable, there is light at the end of the tunnel (Scott 1997). New learning means taking steps to adapt to new situations (Illeris 2002).
Transformative learning is a qualitative change in how one views the world (Hobson and Welbourne 1998). Of course it will involve tensions and struggles as this change comes about through becoming aware of and reconstructing preconceived meanings. I argue that developing critical awareness and consciousness can have a positive effect on how adults see themselves, others and situations.
It is useful for our practice if coaches become courageous enough to engage in ‘transformative leadership’ - understanding the benefits of looking beneath the surface of a professional dilemma for the broader benefits that are to be found (Snyder 2008). I suggest coaching could be described as a Mezirowian Learning Setting (Leeson 2012).
CHAPTER SIX
CLOSING THOUGHTS
In this final chapter, I describe firstly what I have learned about the process of research. Secondly my contribution to knowledge about coaching is acknowledged before I conclude with some suggestions for future study and research.
6.1 Learning from research
This study provided an excellent opportunity to develop my understanding of
research. Scrutinising coaching sessions moment by moment has been fascinating, however, it has at times been frustrating and difficult. I recognised early on that my position as researcher would be potentially problematic due to the tensions of being an employee of the IOE and a member of the coaching group. Being a coach and colleague means I have a view of coaching and how it should be conducted. I found I was writing like a coach, instead of from a more objective position. It was difficult to take my value judgements out of the writing and I confess that took some work by being constantly vigilant that I was maintaining a distance. I am also aware that by being so engrossed in the text, I may have missed some of the subtleties of what was going on.
I had to be careful with language. I realised that using a particular word or phrase could change the meaning or focus of the study. For example, ‘to what extent’ points to measurement, suggesting a more positivist than interpretivist approach. The word ‘evidence’ means different things to different people depending on their relationship with the research (Kaufmann and Bachkirova 2008). Can subjective information be
classed as ‘evidence’? I do believe that ‘professional eavesdropping’ is a useful way of gaining and adding to knowledge. In this interpretivist study, where my language was often tentative, I could not make big claims. I learned when to report fact rather than speculation, for example when EE4 said she ‘was really irritated’. Using words like ‘colluding’ suggests being judgemental – something I tried to avoid. At first I talked about ‘seeing learning’ taking place. I cannot ‘see’ learning but I can listen to a coachee telling me what they feel they have learned.
Exploring different theories and research methods provides extensive opportunities for learning. Knowing when to stop reading and deciding what is most relevant is not easy. I am now in an informed position to be more discerning in future research.
Ethical issues were overcome by being open with the participants as to what my expectations were. However, whilst they knew I was exploring the process of learning, I did not make them completely aware of the finer detail I was exploring. I felt this may have had an impact on how they conducted their conversations. For example, they may have changed their usual practice to accommodate my specific expectations.
I have heard much about my organisation. Some conversations seem focused on heavy workloads and lack of career progression impacting on job satisfaction. Whilst I believe management may benefit from knowing this, confidentiality means I can do nothing. This often feels frustrating. I can only support my colleagues in coping and perhaps taking greater control and ownership of their working lives.
I argued early in the thesis that personal learning, and not organisational efficiency, should be the priority in coaching. On page 58, I highlighted that the IOE depends on functional relationships to succeed in the market place rather than personal
relationships and that this was a tension. I have also argued that democratic values underpin the coaching process. I acknowledge these arguments are based on my own values. Other researchers may view the whole coaching process very differently. This study focuses on my interpretation of coaching and my values which underpin it. By outlining my ideas for professional development to the coach-learning group, my intention is not to impose my beliefs on them, but offer some ideas for discussion. My supervisor, by allowing me to follow up some of my own intuitions about coaching, has been pivotal in my own transformative learning.