Critical evaluation of different approaches to coaching

Seminar paper from the year 2007 in the subject Pedagogy - Science Theory Anthropology University of Sheffield (Faculty of Organisation and Management) language: English abstract: In this assignment I would like to reflect on and develop an understanding of different approaches to coaching and subsequently try to compare these approaches among themselves for the purpose of evaluation. Which approach helps the best to reach a specific goal? Money and time being a constraint in almost all situations it is reasonable to look for evidence concerning best practices. Human mind is known to get influenced quite easily by what it is subjected to. For instance if we look at a description of one approach we easily get the impression that this is the best and the most effective one. All the same if we read about another approach we might believe that the other one is an even better option. Debates like these are an ongoing process in various fields. In the field of teaching for example there has been a long lasting debate about which method is the best. Is it the instructional approach or the group work style or else the open space approach? In therapy similar questions are asked between different schools. Each one claims to be the best and every one can prove it with case studies or sometimes with empirical pieces of research.What works? Many different models of thought have been developed on many different roots and theories. Depending on the underpinning anthropology we find different approaches to the interpretation of coaching. Some emphasize a more rational approach we could call it the Head-level some the level of feelings and others focus on Intuition. Alike the three dimensions in space (length breadth height) there is a need of all three. If one is completely missing the result is nill. With the tendency to measure and to analyse all appearances in the world (coaching included) we always react on the surface of the world. We are in danger to negle