McCarthy Volume 17 article 2

THE CASE FOR COACHING AS AN APPROACH TO ADDRESSING CHALLENGES IN DOCTORAL SUPERVISION

Grace McCarthy1

ABSTRACT

This paper identifies key challenges of doctoral supervision, particularly relating to completion and to developing autonomy and quality of thinking in doctoral candidates. The paper then explores how coaching might be used to address such challenges, with practical examples of coaching conversations.

Keywords: doctoral supervision, coaching, challenges, autonomy, completion,

thinking

INTRODUCTION

Challenges in doctoral supervision have been identified by numerous researchers over the decades. One set of challenges relates to attrition, non-completion or late completion of doctoral candidates—in other words, issues to do with the process of achieving a doctorate, while another set relates to how to help students become independent researchers capable of conceptualisation, critical analysis and judgement. Many issues may contribute to these difficulties. This paper will focus on how the supervisor may help candidates overcome these difficulties and will argue that a coaching approach to supervision has the potential to be effective in this context.

It is not uncommon for writers to observe that doctoral supervisors need to adopt a number of different roles including managers, mentors, coaches, facilitators and counsellors (Hammond et al. 2010; McCallin & Nayar 2011; Vilkinas, 2002), although little practical guidance is provided as to how to do so. The research question addressed in this paper is whether some of the issues identified in doctoral supervision, such as encouraging completion and encouraging doctoral students to become independent researchers, might be at least partially addressed if supervisors adopt a coaching approach.

The evidence-base for the effectiveness of coaching has increased enormously in recent years. While there are many different approaches to coaching, underpinning all of them according to Cox et al. (2010) is the theory of adult learning. The authors suggest that change is at the heart of coaching and that change suggests that learning has taken place, with coaching helping people to make sense of their experience. In particular, the authors relate coaching to the theories of andragogy (Knowles 2005), experiential learning (Kolb 1984) and transformational learning (Mezirow 1990). The importance of adult learning in doctoral supervision has also been recognised by Shacham and Od-Cohen (2009) who highlight parallels relating to motivation, relevance and choice for doctoral candidates. Maxwell and Smyth (2010) highlight the transformational nature of doctoral education for the student, claiming that the role of the supervisor enables deep and transformational learning through facilitation and guidance of the student, as well as a focus on the production of the research

1

Dr Grace McCarthy (gracemc@uow.edu.au) is the Master of Business Coaching Program Director, Teaching & Learning Co-ordinator and Faculty Education Committee Chair at the Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.

itself. Thus, doctoral supervision and coaching are linked by their common foundation of adult education.

A literature search was conducted in the following databases: British Education Index, Business Source Complete, Eric, Expanded Academic, Informit (including A+ Education), Proquest, Sage Journals, and Taylor and Francis, initially using the search terms ‘doctoral

supervision’ and ‘challenge or issue or difficulty or problem’. However, few papers were

retrieved. The search was repeated using the search term ‘doctoral supervision’ and the papers retrieved were scanned to identify whether or not they referred to problems or issues in supervision. To broaden the search further the search was repeated across all databases, using

the search term ‘doctorate’ in the title field and, again, scanning the resulting papers. Next,

the search term ‘coaching’ was combined with ‘doctoral supervision’ but this yielded little

apart from casual mentions of coaching in this context, indicating the novelty of this approach.

This paper first identifies some common issues which arise in doctoral supervision. The paper then argues that these issues have been shown to be addressed in evidence-based coaching practice. The paper then suggests practical ways in which coaching can be applied to address each of the key issues, linking the coaching literature with the doctoral supervision literature.

The term ‘supervisor’ is used for the experienced researcher working with the candidate. The

term ‘coachee’ is used for the person being coached.

CHALLENGES IN DOCTORAL SUPERVISION

There is in Australia and elsewhere increased pressure to ensure that doctoral candidates complete their doctorates and do so in a timely fashion, as numerous studies attest (Cribb & Gewertz 2006; Cullen 1994; Deuchar 2008; Franke & Arvidsson 2011; Grant & Pearson 2007; Herman 2011; Kiley 2011; McAlpine & Norton 2006; Vilkinas 2002). With on-time completion increasingly linked to funding mechanisms, universities have responded by implementing formal processes and procedures, targets and audits of progress. While other factors such as students working, financial or family pressures also contribute to attrition rates, as noted for example by Abiddin and Ismail (2011), there is, according to Lee and McKenzie (2011), a critical relationship between the quality of supervision and completion rates. A recent Australian Government report acknowledges that the change in funding through the Research Training Scheme has led to an improvement in completion times, however, it notes concerns that ‘in some cases higher completion rates might have been

achieved at the cost of quality’ (DIISR 2011 p.13). The Australian Department of Innovation,

Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) is currently reviewing whether completions should continue to form part of the funding formula and are examining other measures for assessing quality in doctoral research training.

Holligan (2005) argues that completion rates are a poor proxy for quality of doctoral

supervision and can lead students to expect ‘quick fixes’ to their academic problems. The

drive to improve completion rates comes at a time when supervisors are being expected to take on more students than ever before (Stokes & McCulloch 2010; Ferman 2002). Regrettably, this pressure can lead to supervisors becoming overly directive which, according to Holligan (2005), conflicts with the intention to support students in becoming independent researchers. Vilkinas (2002) suggests that supervisors who focus on the coordinator role of completion may exert excessive control, while Malfroy (2005) claims that students expect too much support and do not want to become independent learners. Yet, to reach a doctoral standard, according to the Australian Qualifications Framework (2011), candidates need to

‘apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, authoritative judgement, adaptability and responsibility as an expert and leading practitioner or scholar’. Similarly, other authors (e.g. Kaerner & Puura 2008; Stracke & Kumar 2010) define the principal aim of doctoral education as enabling the doctoral candidate to achieve autonomy and independent critical analysis. The tension between being supportive and enabling autonomy has been noted in supervisory studies (e.g. Delamont et al 1998). Deuchar (2008) explores the tensions from the point of view of supervisor and candidate. Mainhard et al. 2009 describe the relationship from an interpersonal perspective, while Wisker et al. (2009) propose communities of practice as a way to address this tension.

In completing a doctorate, students need to reach a level of conceptualisation which is usually beyond that which they have previously attained in either study or professional roles. Leshem (2007) reports that ‘Most candidates struggled as they sought to progress from descriptive to

conceptual perspectives on research’. Halse and Malfroy (2010) and Cullen (1994) note that

desires to improve supervision are related not only to improving completion rates, but also to improving the quality. Wisker et al. (2009) highlight a further tension between developing a creative piece of work which makes a genuine contribution to knowledge and the development of research skills, time management and writing—which are important elements of researcher training. The authors argue that it is through dialogue with supervisors and

others that candidates move beyond ‘deference and synthesis’. In an earlier book, The Good

Supervisor, Wisker (2005) explores a range of ‘supervisory dialogues’ arguing that these conversations are ‘the major way in which supervisors work with students to support their

development’ (p.133). Such supervisory dialogues come close to the practice of coaching,

with Wisker including questions which elicit further comments, clarifying and confronting poor performance.

A common challenge for doctoral students is to feel ‘stuck’ (Kiley 2009), losing

self-confidence or self-esteem, or struggling with their new identity as a student and having to accept feedback on their work. Although doctoral students may be expert in their professional lives, they are often research novices and may struggle with their inequality in relation to their supervisor and the way negative feedback is sometimes given in public (Malfroy 2005). Having to learn new terminology or experiencing difficulties with data analysis can impact on candidates’ sense of identity and their self-efficacy. Kiley (2009) notes the problem for supervisors of challenging students’ work without damaging their confidence. Finally, problems with the relationship between supervisor and doctoral candidate have been identified as a major source of difficulties, contributing to the issues identified above (Franke & Arvidsson 2011; Paulson et al. 2010) while, conversely, a positive relationship is regarded as one of the factors in successful completion (Barnes & Austin 2009; Mainhard et al. 2009; Wong & Wong 2010). The different forms this relationship can take are categorised by Bruce and Stoodley (2009) as directing, collaborative and responsive, with both coaching and

mentoring categorised as ‘responsive’. This paper focuses on coaching as the least researched

form of supervision.

In summary, the main challenges in doctoral supervision identified in the literature relate to: - On-time completion

- Autonomy

The supervisory relationship and the way supervisors give feedback has a strong impact on all three. This paper next explores the rationale for adopting coaching as an appropriate way to address these challenges.

CASE FOR USING COACHING TO OVERCOME CHALLENGES

Much of the discourse around completion relates to a mechanistic and sometimes even a contractual approach to doctoral studies (Holligan 2005) There is, however, an alternative way to work with students on progress and completion—through a coaching approach to goal-setting. A small scale research project into coaching academics for research productivity in South Africa found that the eight participants achieved their goals and aligned their personal goals with the organisational goals (Geber 2010). In a randomised controlled trial of forty-one executives, Grant et al. (2009) found that coaching enhanced goal attainment and increased self-confidence. Another study of twenty-six executives found that after a single coaching session, managers were more committed to a selected goal and showed higher

self-concordance (the degree to which goals are aligned with the person’s core values) (Burke &

Linley 2007). Regular coaching sessions allow the coach to follow up with coachees and help them maintain their level of goal commitment, holding them accountable for the actions they have agreed (Spence & Grant 2007). Feedback is an important part of coaching, with coaches challenging coachees if their progress starts to slip. Coaching has also been shown to be effective in project management (Berg & Karlsen 2007), with coachees showing a consistent improvement in goal attainment. Hence, using coaching to set goals for completion and interim goals to demonstrate progress is likely to improve on-time completion rates for doctoral students.

The question of developing autonomy is one that is also addressed in coaching, with coachees encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. This links both to completion and to independence as a researcher. The collaborative nature of the coaching relationship

encourages autonomy as the coach is not the ‘expert’ telling the coachee what to do, but a

non-directive partner helping the coachee to work out what to do themselves (Rostron 2009; Scoular 2011). In the same way, a supervisor can encourage a doctoral candidate to work out what they need to do. Wilson (2007) notes that people learn more when they discover things for themselves, rather than when others tell them something. The coachee takes responsibility for their goals, having developed their awareness of the options available to them. The coach

can be challenging without provoking resentment because ‘he is not imposing his own will

but activating the will of the coachee’ (Whitmore 2009 p.85). As Leimon et al. (2005)

observe, ‘where there is affirmation, ownership of a decision or a commitment…there is

higher likelihood of follow-through and achievement’. Follow-up provides on-going support

and shows the coach’s interest in what the coachee is learning (Hunt & Weintraub 2010).

Here again feedback skills are important in order that support is provided in a constructive way (Gregory et al. 2008; Hunt & Weintraub 2010).

With regard to helping doctoral candidates improve the quality of their thinking, coaches help people articulate their tacit knowledge, challenge their coachees’ sloppy thinking and encourage them to consider alternatives and different perspectives (McMahon 2009; Wilson 2007). Through a combination of listening and questioning, the coach helps their coachee achieve new levels of awareness and insight. The way the questions are asked has been found to make a difference in a pilot study of thirty-nine adults by Grant and O’Connor (2010) which reported that a solution-focused approach to questions resulted in participants increasing in self-efficacy, as well as developing insight and understanding, whereas a

problem-oriented approach increased self-efficacy but did not increase insight or understanding.

Coaching research, therefore, supports the case for coaching to be used where there is a desire to improve goal attainment, to encourage coachees to take responsibility for their actions and improve the quality of thinking of coachees. The next section discusses how coaching skills can be applied to doctoral supervision.

APPLICATION OF COACHING SKILLS TO DOCTORAL SUPERVISION

With regard to the main challenges identified above of improving on-time completion,

developing candidates’ autonomy and improving the quality of their thinking, the key

coaching skills are goal-setting, feedback, questioning and listening. This section suggests some practical ways in which these skills can be applied with doctoral candidates.

Completion

Goal setting is usually included in coaching, although it does not have to be (Garvey et al. 2009). Here, the supervisor takes the opportunity to understand the candidate’s motivation at a deeper level than ‘get a PhD’. For example, candidates may want to give something back to the community or their country, to do something to be proud of, to open a door to their future career, to develop new knowledge or to explore a strong personal interest. These over-arching goals are motivations which can help the candidate keep going through difficult times. According to Szoltzfus (2008), the most powerful goals are those where the coachee has ownership of an idea, passion to achieve it, a sense of urgency, and a sense that this is important and will make a difference. These same attributes apply to doctoral students. Shorter goals and actions with agreed timescales ensure both parties can see how the end goal will be achieved (Phillips & Pugh 2010) and build trust as timescales are met. Timely and specific feedback on missed deadlines or on quality of work submitted is important to help the candidate keep on track.

Questions can also be used to establish candidates’ level of commitment, either to their research as a whole or to a specific action. For example, if a candidate has agreed to write up

their literature review but has not yet delivered, a scaling question might be ‘On a scale of one

to ten, how committed are you to submitting a draft of your literature review by next Monday?’ If the candidate’s answer is on the low side, the supervisor can explore further. If it is on the high side, the supervisor may explore what the candidate will be doing differently that makes it a high number such as an eight or a nine.

Naming the issue is a technique coaches sometimes use to confront problems (Szoltzfus 2008). Supervisors could use this, for example, if they identify a pattern of missed deadlines. Delamont et al. (2004) note that students may not have developed good habits for self-directed research. A supervisor might then say, ‘This is the third time you have missed a

deadline we have agreed. Let’s talk about deadlines’. This opens up a conversation rather than

the candidate closing down when criticised for missing the deadline. The conversation may reveal differences in attitudes to deadlines, or may point to the candidate’s perfectionism and unwillingness to submit something not up to the standard they believe necessary, or there may be other issues in the candidate’s life such as carer responsibilities. Both supervisor and candidate may be surprised by the insights which emerge from this conversation. They can then agree the way forward.

According to Delamont et al. ignoring problems ‘through misplaced tact, embarrassment or

guilt on either side, will only perpetuate and exacerbate them’ (2004, p100). Instead, the

supervisor needs to confront issues with the candidate, understand underlying issues, help the candidate identify options to address, and encourage the candidate to take responsibility. This is addressed in a typical coaching session, for example, using the GROW (Goal Reality Options Wrap-up) model (Alexander 2006). GROW, according to Alexander, is the most common model in coaching today.

Research on the degree to which feedback contributes to performance has been mixed, however, improvement is more marked where feedback is followed up with goal setting through coaching (McDowall & Millward 2010). A future focus or so-called ‘feedforward’ is a useful way for managers to highlight the strengths of team members and indicate how they might improve in the future (Goldsmith 2006; McDowall & Millward 2010). Cadman and Cargill, (2007) give some examples of how doctoral supervisors might do this in regard to

students’ writing.

Autonomy

Effective coaches, according to Cavanagh and Grant (2010), share their mental models with their coachees. Academics give feedback which makes it clear where the student’s work needs to be improved, but do not always articulate the criteria against which they judge the

candidate’s work. Nor is there universal agreement about the criteria by which a PhD should

be judged. How then can candidates learn to assess their own work? As a minimum, the supervisor and candidate need to discuss the guidelines given to examiners by their

institution. Papers such as ‘It’s a PhD not a Nobel prize’ (Mullins & Kiley 2002) help

supervisors and candidates arrive at a shared understanding of what is needed, and thus help candidates become proficient at assessing their own work. Some candidates attain the greatest understanding of what is required when asked to give feedback to other candidates. Peer review, whether in coursework, communities of practice or informal peer groups, helps develop a shared sense of what is required (Wisker et al. 2007).

On-going constructive feedback from a supportive supervisor helps candidates to develop confidence that they are making progress and that their goal is attainable (Phillips & Pugh 2010). However, the supervisor should also help candidates to develop autonomy and reduce the frequency and amount of feedback as the candidate’s self-evaluation begins to match that of their supervisor (Sambrook et al. 2008). Adopting the coaching approach to feedback of first asking the candidate for their self-evaluation encourages candidates to ask themselves the questions their supervisors will ask and to calibrate their own judgement (Hunt & Weintraub 2010).

Supervisors vary in whether they comment on the candidate’s use of language, whether or not candidates are writing in their native tongue. Supervisors who comment on language usually highlight errors or suggest rephrasing. However, if the supervisor or a language advisor discusses patterns of mistakes with the candidate, the candidate may gain a better understanding of the source of the error and how to eliminate or minimise it in their writing. An important goal for supervisors according to Cadman and Cargill (2007) is that candidates should be able to self-edit, just as they develop the ability to self-assess the technical quality of their work.

Listening can also be used to help the candidate develop autonomy and thinking. Listening is one of the most important and under-rated coaching skills (Dubrin 2005; Leimon et al. 2005;

Zeus & Skiffington 2000). Scoular (2010) suggests that listening creates both trust and authenticity and thus enhances the relationship. Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) found that listening makes people feel engaged, interested, included and cared for. For many coachees, listening is the best part of coaching, as their ideas are being heard and valued at a deep level (Arnold 2009). Good practice includes setting up an environment free of interruptions, for example, turning off computer screens, demonstrating interest in what is being said through one’s body language, and confirming that one has understood either by reflecting back or paraphrasing what has been said. Doctoral supervisors can adopt a similar approach, as suggested by Reidy and Green (2005). Feedback on content comes later but, initially, it is useful for the supervisor to listen in a non-judgemental way so that they really understand the

candidate’s position and the candidate is aware that they do. However, time pressures can lead

the supervisor to provide a quick answer, thus meeting the expectation of the candidate that the supervisor is an expert who will provide an answer. However, this will not develop the

candidate’s autonomy. Instead, asking clarifying questions and reflecting back what the

candidate has said can help the candidate develop their understanding and their ability to make their own informed decisions.

Quality of thinking

Questions are a powerful tool in coaching and can be used in doctoral supervision both to develop a candidate’s autonomy and to improve the candidate’s standard of critical analysis and judgement. As researchers ourselves, we may believe we are good at asking questions. However, the questions a supervisor asks are often related purely to the content of the research or the research methods chosen, and sometimes seem to serve to underline how clever the supervisor is. Good questions draw the candidate out and help ensure the supervisor understands what is in the candidate’s head (Phillips & Pugh 2010). Coaches use questions for a variety of other purposes including engaging the coachee, establishing or maintaining a relationship, understanding the coachee’s motivation, and prompting the coachee to think and develop insights. Coaches usually ask non-directive questions as these encourage the coachee to think more than if they are supplied with a solution. Supervisors, however, are often in the habit of giving answers. If they continue to give answers throughout the candidature, the candidate will not become independent. Simple responses when asking a question such as

‘What do you think?’ get the candidate in the habit of clarifying their own thoughts and

having some ideas to propose to the supervisor, rather than presenting with a problem. Simply encouraging the candidate to continue talking, for example, ‘Tell me more’ is often enough to prompt candidates to put their thinking into words. Foulger (2010) highlights the value of ‘external conversations’ between action researchers, particularly novice researchers, and people who are unfamiliar with the context, hence requiring the researcher to articulate their experience and collaboratively make sense of it.

The purpose of such discussions is of course for the student to learn. In coaching, people learn more when prompted by questions than when told information. The rarest question in

coaching is ‘why’. This has been found to make the coachee defensive and, in defending what

they have done, they become more attached to it and harder to shift. Coaches, therefore, are more likely to use ‘how’ to understand the way the coachee does something or intends to do something, and then uses open questions such as ‘how else might one do x?’ to explore options. This approach can also be used with doctoral candidates. For example, if a student has a fixed idea about the research methods to use in their research, rather than the supervisor enumerating the alternatives, the supervisor might ask the candidate to do so. Both then have confidence that the candidate has sufficient knowledge about alternatives to make an informed choice and the candidate develops independence as a researcher.

The supervisor may also use approaches from cognitive behavioural coaching to challenge the beliefs which hold the candidate back. A range of examples is given in McMahon (2009). Such beliefs may include self-limiting beliefs about the research candidates can undertake, assuming for example that they could not get access to organisations or funds for research and not asking about their supervisor’s resources and networks. There may be flaws in their reasoning such as ‘I am anxious about the quality of my research so it must be poor’. The supervisor can challenge this, getting candidates to consider whether they have any data to support their assertions, whether there are other plausible explanations for their anxiety such

as the candidate’s lack of experience in judging quality at a doctoral level and the importance

of their study to them. A candidate may be reluctant to present at a conference fearing that they do not know enough or may make mistakes. The supervisor can tackle this in various

ways such as ‘even if that were true and you did make mistakes, what is the worst that can

happen?’ Once the candidate has realised that their worst fears are not too serious, they can focus more clearly on the benefits of such a presentation, such as the opportunity for feedback and opportunities for networking. Candidates may also be prone to over-generalising. They may find it useful to ask themselves the questions their supervisor asks about the research they cite, for example, ‘In what country or context did this research take place?’ and ‘How might that differ from the context of your research?’ Other candidates may tend to discount theories they disagree with and over-emphasise theories which they agree with. Rather than pointing out the bias, the supervisor can ask questions which prompt the student to evaluate different sources and help them develop good habits in critical analysis (Phillips & Pugh 2010).

An approach from solution-focused coaching is to help candidates visualise the problem having been solved. Sometimes known as the miracle question, such questions can be phrased in various ways such as ‘imagine you woke up in the morning and a miracle had happened, and the problem had been solved, what would you be doing, how would you be feeling?’ This helps candidates see that the problem (e.g. they find it difficult to start writing) can be solved and they can then define steps to get there. A focus on solutions rather than on problems has been found to be more effective in coaching, resulting in a higher level of confidence in the coachee’s ability to solve a problem (Grant and O'Connor 2010).

Listening is also crucial when candidates discuss the content of their research, their research methods and data. While an academic may be used to correcting students whenever a student makes an incorrect assertion, this makes the student rely on the academic for validation or amendment of what they have said. Instead, by listening carefully and with some questions

about the student’s line of thinking, the supervisor has a better chance of understanding where

the student has made an error. For instance, correcting a student for choosing a wrong statistical technique does not help make the student autonomous and the student may only learn what the correct technique is in this particular context. An alternative is for the supervisor to ask questions which help the student to understand what criteria to consider when choosing a technique, which will help them to justify their choice and give them confidence in selecting other techniques, thus contributing both to the candidate’s learning and to their autonomy..

Academics may be used to picking holes in each other’s research, however, coaches focus on

the positive, noting where the candidate has strengths and building on those. According to Linley (2006), adopting a positive approach changes the questions the coach asks. For example, adopting this approach, a supervisor might ask the candidate if they know when they do their best work, and use the discussion to explore strategies to make the most of those

times. If a candidate is feeling low because of a rejection from a journal, the supervisor might encourage them to think about other times when they have had to cope with rejection, how they coped with it then, and how they might use that experience to help them this time. There are times when candidates begin to lose their self-belief. The supervisor’s belief in them helps them to renew their commitment and their effort.

CONCLUSION

This paper has argued that a coaching approach lends itself to the support of the doctoral candidate in successful completion of their thesis. Having identified key challenges in doctoral supervision as completion, candidate autonomy and quality of thinking, the contribution of this paper is to show that similar issues are addressed in coaching, and indicating where coaching can be used effectively in doctoral supervision by encouraging a

focus on goals, developing the candidate’s autonomy and challenging the candidate’s thinking

in a positive way. Further research is needed into the extent to which coaching skills are already used by supervisors, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of coaching in doctoral supervision on completion rates, autonomy and quality of thesis, and on supervisors’

and candidates’ experience. Observations of supervision sessions are rare, but would provide

stronger evidence than self-reports. The potential for coaching to contribute to doctoral supervision appears strong. If empirical research demonstrates the effectiveness of coaching in this context, more supervisors are likely to adopt this approach.

Acknowledgements

My sincere thanks to the editor for her encouragement, and to the two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback. My thanks go also to my doctoral students and co-supervisors, from whom I have learned so much.

REFERENCES

Abiddin, NA & Ismail, A 2011, ‘Attrition and completion issues in postgraduate studies for student development’, International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities 1, 15-29. Alexander, G 2006, ‘Behavioural coaching—the GROW model’, in J Passmore (ed.) Excellence in coaching: The industry guide, Kogan Page, London.

Alvesson, M & Sveningsson, S 2003, ‘Managers Doing Leadership: The Extra-Ordinarization of the Mundane’, Human Relations, 56, 1435-1459.

AQF 2011, Australian Qualifications Framework, DEEWR, Canberra.

Arnold, J 2009, Coaching skills for leaders in the workplace, Oxford How to Books.

Barnes, BJ & Austin, AE 2009, ‘The role of doctoral advisors: a look at advising from the

advisor’s perspective’, Innovation in Education, 33, 297-314.

Berg, M & Karlsen, J 2007, ‘Mental Models in Project Management Coaching’, Engineering Management Journal, 19, 3.

Bruce, C & Stoodley, I 2009, ‘Toward a pedagogy of supervision in the technology disciplines’, ALTC, Sydney.

Burke, D & Linley, PA 2007, ‘Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching’, International Coaching Psychology Review, 2, 62-69.

Cadman, K & Cargill, M 2007, ‘Providing Quality Advice on Candidates' Writing’, in C Denholm & T Evans (eds.), Supervising Doctorates Downunder: Keys to Effective Supervision in Australia and New Zealand, ACER, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia.

Cavanagh, MJ & Grant, AM 2010, ‘The solution-focused approach to coaching’, in E Cox, T Bachkirova & D Clutterbuck (eds.), Complete handbook of coaching, Sage, London.

Cox, E, Bachkirova, T & Clutterbuck, D (eds.) 2010, The complete handbook of coaching, Sage, London.

Cribb, A & Gewirtz, S 2006, ‘Doctoral student supervision in a managerial climate’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 16, 223-236.

Cullen, DJ 1994, Establishing Effective PhD supervision, Department of Employment, Education and Training, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Delamont, S, Atkinson, P & Parry, O 2004, Supervising the Doctorate 2nd edn,, McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire, England.

Department of Innovation, Industry Science and Research (DIISR) 2011, ‘Defining quality for research training in Australia: a consultation paper’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Deuchar, R 2008, ‘Facilitator, director or critical friend?: contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles’, Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 489-500.

Dubrin, AJ 2005, Coaching and mentoring skills, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ferman, T 2002, ‘The knowledge needs of doctoral supervisors’, Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Australian Association for Research in Education.

Foulger, TS 2010, ‘External Conversations’, Action Research, 8, 135-152.

Franke, A & Arvidsson, B 2011, ‘Research Supervisors' Different Ways of Experiencing Supervision of Doctoral Students’, Studies in Higher Education, 36, 7-19.

Garvey, R, Stokes, P & Megginson, D 2009, Coaching and mentoring theory and practice, Sage, London.

Geber, H 2010, ‘Coaching for accelerated research productivity in Higher Education’, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 8, 64-78.

Goldsmith, M. 2006, ‘Try feedforward instead of feedback’, in M Goldsmith & L Lyons (eds.) Coaching for leadershipm, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.

Grant, AM & O'Connor, SA 2010, ‘The differential effects of solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice’, Industrial and Commercial Training, 42, 102-111.

Grant, AM, Curtayne, L & Burton, G 2009, ‘Executive coaching enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being: a randomised controlled study’, Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice, 4, 396-407. Grant, B & Pearson, M 2007, ‘Approaches to doctoral supervision in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand’, in D Carey and T Evans (eds.) Supervising doctorates downunder: Keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand, ACER,. Victoria.

Gregory, JB, Levy, PE & Jeffers, M 2008, 'Development of a model of the feedback process within executive coaching', Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 42-56.

Halse, C & Malfroy, J 2010, ‘Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work Studies in Higher Education, 35, 79-92.

Hammond, J, Ryland, K, Tennant, M & Boud, D 2010, Building research supervision and training across Australian universities, ALTC, Sydney.

Herman, C 2011, ‘Obstacles to success—doctoral student attrition in South Africa’, Perspectives in Education: The changing face of doctoral education in South Africa 29, 40-52.

Holligan, C 2005. ‘Fact and fiction: a case history of doctoral supervision’, Educational Research, 47, 267-278.

Hunt, JM & Weintraub, JR 2010, The coaching manager, Sage, Los Angeles.

Kaerner, A & Puura, V 2008, ‘Doctoral education in transition to knowledge-based society’, Trames, 12, 95-109.

Kearns, H & Gardiner, M 2011, ‘The care and maintenance of your adviser’, Nature, 469, 570.

Kiley, M 2009, ‘Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 293-304.

Kiley, M 2011, ‘Developments in research supervisor training: causes and responses’, Studies in Higher Education, 36, 585-599.

Knowles, M, Holton SEF III, et al. 2005, The adult learner, Elsevier, San Diego, CA. Kolb, D 1984, Experiential learning, Prentice Hall, NY.

Lee, A & McKenzie, J 2011, ‘Evaluating doctoral supervision: tensions in eliciting students' perspectives’, Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 48, 69-78.

Leimon, A et al. 2005, Essential business coaching, Routledge.

Leshem, S 2007, ‘Thinking about conceptual frameworks in a research community of practice: a case of a doctoral programme’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 287-299.

Linley, PA 2006, ‘Strengths coaching: a potential-guided approach to coaching psychology’, International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 37-46.

Mainhard, T, Van der Rijst, R, Van Tartwijk, J & Wubbels, T 2009, ‘A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship’, Higher Education, 58, 359-373.

Malfroy, J 2005, ‘Doctoral Supervision, Workplace Research and Changing Pedagogic Practices’, Higher Education Research and Development, 24, 165-178.

Maxwell, TW & Smyth, R 2010, ‘Research supervision: the research management matrix’, Higher Education 59: 407-422.

McCallin, A & Nayar, S 2011, ‘Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice’, Teaching in Higher Education, 1-12.

McAlpine, L & Norton, J 2006, ‘Reframing our approach to doctoral programs: an integrative framework for action and research’, Higher Education Research and Development, 25, 3-17. McDowall, A & Millward, L 2010, ‘Feeding back, feeding forward and setting goals’, in S Palmer & A McDowall (eds.), The coaching relationship: Putting people first, Routledge, Hove, England.

McMahon, G 2009, ‘Cognitive behavioural coaching’ in D Megginson & D Clutterbuck (eds.), Further techniques for coachind and mentoring, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Mezirow, J 1990, ‘Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and emancipatory learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Mullins, G & Kiley, M 2002, 'It's a PhD not a Nobel prize': how experienced examiners assess research theses’, Studies in Higher Education, 27, 369-286.

O'Broin, A & Palmer, S 2010, ‘Introducing an interpersonal perspective on the coaching relationship’, in S Palmer & A McDowall (eds.), The coaching relationship: putting people first, Routledge, Hove, East Sussex.

Paulson, J, Hopwood, N, McAlpine, L & Mills, D 2010, ‘Untold doctoral experiences: research findings and recommendations from a study into the challenges of doctoral study’, University of Oxford/Centre for Excellence in Preparing for Academic Practice, Oxford. Phillips, E & Pugh, DS 2010, How to get a PhD: a handbook for students and their supervisors, 5th edn, McGraw-Hill, Berkshire.

Reidy, J & Green, P 2005, ‘Collaborative knowledge management and the art of coaching: reflections on the diverse roles of the successful supervisor’, Supervising postgraduate research : contexts and processes, theories and practices, RMIT University Press, 48-69. Rostron, SS 2009, Business coaching international, Karnac, London.

Sambrook, S, Stewart, J & Roberts, C 2008, ‘Doctoral Supervision: A View from Above, Below and the Middle!’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32, 71-84.

Shacham, M & Od-Cohen, Y 2009, ‘Rethinking PhD learning: incorporating communities of practice’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International 46(3), 279-292.

Spence, G & Grant, AM 2007, ‘Professional and peer life coaching and the enhancement of goal striving and well-being: An exploratory study’, Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 185-194.

Stokes, P. & McCulloch, A 2010, ‘A generational analysis of the “How to Get a PhD…” literature: Towards a classification of the genre’, in M Kiley (ed.) 9th Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference: Educating researchers for the 21st century, Adelaide: ANU.

Stracke, E & Kumar, V 2010, ‘Feedback and self regulated learning: insights from

supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports’, Reflective Practice, 11, 19-32.

Szoltzfus, T 2008, Coaching questions: a coach's guide to powerful asking skills, Coach22, Virginia Beach, VA.

Vilkinas, T 2002, ‘The PhD process: the supervisor as manager’, Education + Training, 44, 129-137.

Whitmore, J 2009, Coaching for performance, Nicholas Brealey, London.

Wilson, C 2007, ‘Best practice in performance coaching: a handbook for leaders, coaches, HR professionals, and organizations, Kogan Page, London/Philadelphia.

Wisker, G 2005, The good supervisor, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Wisker, G & McAlpine, L 2009, ‘Embracing contraries in research on doctoral education: the richness of conceptual diversity’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 249-251.

Wisker, G, Robinson, G & Shacham, M 2007, ‘Postgraduate resarch success: communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities’, Innovations in Education & Teaching International 44, 301-320.

Wong, LCJ & Wong, PTP 2010, ‘What helps and what hinders thesis completion: a critical incident study’, International Journal of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 2. Zeus, P & Skiffington, S 2000, Complete guide to coaching at work, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.

The supervisor may also use approaches from cognitive behavioural coaching to challenge the beliefs which hold the candidate back. A range of examples is given in McMahon (2009). Such beliefs may include self-limiting beliefs about the research candidates can undertake, assuming for example that they could not get access to organisations or funds for research and

not asking about their supervisor’s resources and networks. There may be flaws in their

reasoning such as ‘I am anxious about the quality of my research so it must be poor’. The supervisor can challenge this, getting candidates to consider whether they have any data to support their assertions, whether there are other plausible explanations for their anxiety such

as the candidate’s lack of experience in judging quality at a doctoral level and the importance of their study to them. A candidate may be reluctant to present at a conference fearing that they do not know enough or may make mistakes. The supervisor can tackle this in various

ways such as ‘even if that were true and you did make mistakes, what is the worst that can happen?’ Once the candidate has realised that their worst fears are not too serious, they can focus more clearly on the benefits of such a presentation, such as the opportunity for feedback and opportunities for networking. Candidates may also be prone to over-generalising. They may find it useful to ask themselves the questions their supervisor asks about the research they cite, for example, ‘In what country or context did this research take place?’ and ‘How

might that differ from the context of your research?’ Other candidates may tend to discount

theories they disagree with and over-emphasise theories which they agree with. Rather than pointing out the bias, the supervisor can ask questions which prompt the student to evaluate different sources and help them develop good habits in critical analysis (Phillips & Pugh 2010).

An approach from solution-focused coaching is to help candidates visualise the problem having been solved. Sometimes known as the miracle question, such questions can be phrased

in various ways such as ‘imagine you woke up in the morning and a miracle had happened, and the problem had been solved, what would you be doing, how would you be feeling?’

This helps candidates see that the problem (e.g. they find it difficult to start writing) can be solved and they can then define steps to get there. A focus on solutions rather than on problems has been found to be more effective in coaching, resulting in a higher level of confidence in the coachee’s ability to solve a problem (Grant and O'Connor 2010).

Listening is also crucial when candidates discuss the content of their research, their research methods and data. While an academic may be used to correcting students whenever a student makes an incorrect assertion, this makes the student rely on the academic for validation or amendment of what they have said. Instead, by listening carefully and with some questions

about the student’s line of thinking, the supervisor has a better chance of understanding where the student has made an error. For instance, correcting a student for choosing a wrong statistical technique does not help make the student autonomous and the student may only learn what the correct technique is in this particular context. An alternative is for the supervisor to ask questions which help the student to understand what criteria to consider when choosing a technique, which will help them to justify their choice and give them confidence in selecting other techniques, thus contributing both to the candidate’s learning and to their autonomy..

Academics may be used to picking holes in each other’s research, however, coaches focus on the positive, noting where the candidate has strengths and building on those. According to Linley (2006), adopting a positive approach changes the questions the coach asks. For example, adopting this approach, a supervisor might ask the candidate if they know when they do their best work, and use the discussion to explore strategies to make the most of those

times. If a candidate is feeling low because of a rejection from a journal, the supervisor might encourage them to think about other times when they have had to cope with rejection, how they coped with it then, and how they might use that experience to help them this time. There are times when candidates begin to lose their self-belief. The supervisor’s belief in them helps them to renew their commitment and their effort.

CONCLUSION

This paper has argued that a coaching approach lends itself to the support of the doctoral candidate in successful completion of their thesis. Having identified key challenges in doctoral supervision as completion, candidate autonomy and quality of thinking, the contribution of this paper is to show that similar issues are addressed in coaching, and indicating where coaching can be used effectively in doctoral supervision by encouraging a

focus on goals, developing the candidate’s autonomy and challenging the candidate’s thinking

in a positive way. Further research is needed into the extent to which coaching skills are already used by supervisors, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of coaching in doctoral supervision on completion rates, autonomy and quality of thesis, and on supervisors’

and candidates’ experience. Observations of supervision sessions are rare, but would provide stronger evidence than self-reports. The potential for coaching to contribute to doctoral supervision appears strong. If empirical research demonstrates the effectiveness of coaching in this context, more supervisors are likely to adopt this approach.

Acknowledgements

My sincere thanks to the editor for her encouragement, and to the two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback. My thanks go also to my doctoral students and co-supervisors, from whom I have learned so much.

REFERENCES

Abiddin, NA & Ismail, A 2011, ‘Attrition and completion issues in postgraduate studies for student development’,International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities 1, 15-29. Alexander, G 2006, ‘Behavioural coaching—the GROW model’, in J Passmore (ed.)

Excellence in coaching: The industry guide, Kogan Page, London.

Alvesson, M & Sveningsson, S 2003, ‘Managers Doing Leadership: The Extra-Ordinarization of the Mundane’,Human Relations, 56, 1435-1459.

AQF 2011, Australian Qualifications Framework, DEEWR, Canberra.

Arnold, J 2009, Coaching skills for leaders in the workplace, Oxford How to Books.

Barnes, BJ & Austin, AE 2009, ‘The role of doctoral advisors: a look at advising from the

advisor’s perspective’,Innovation in Education, 33, 297-314.

Berg, M & Karlsen, J 2007, ‘Mental Models in Project Management Coaching’, Engineering

Management Journal, 19, 3.

Bruce, C & Stoodley, I 2009, ‘Toward a pedagogy of supervision in the technology disciplines’, ALTC, Sydney.

Burke, D & Linley, PA 2007, ‘Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching’,

Cadman, K & Cargill, M 2007, ‘Providing Quality Advice on Candidates' Writing’, in C Denholm & T Evans (eds.), Supervising Doctorates Downunder: Keys to Effective

Supervision in Australia and New Zealand, ACER, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia.

Cavanagh, MJ & Grant, AM 2010, ‘The solution-focused approach to coaching’, in E Cox, T Bachkirova & D Clutterbuck (eds.), Complete handbook of coaching, Sage, London.

Cox, E, Bachkirova, T & Clutterbuck, D (eds.) 2010, The complete handbook of coaching,

Sage, London.

Cribb, A & Gewirtz, S 2006, ‘Doctoral student supervision in a managerial climate’,

International Studies in Sociology of Education, 16, 223-236.

Cullen, DJ 1994, Establishing Effective PhD supervision, Department of Employment, Education and Training, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Delamont, S, Atkinson, P & Parry, O 2004, Supervising the Doctorate 2nd edn,, McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire, England.

Department of Innovation, Industry Science and Research (DIISR) 2011, ‘Defining quality for research training in Australia: a consultation paper’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Deuchar, R 2008, ‘Facilitator, director or critical friend?: contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles’,Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 489-500.

Dubrin, AJ 2005, Coaching and mentoring skills, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ferman, T 2002, ‘The knowledge needs of doctoral supervisors’, Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Australian Association for Research in Education.

Foulger, TS 2010, ‘External Conversations’,Action Research, 8, 135-152.

Franke, A & Arvidsson, B 2011, ‘Research Supervisors' Different Ways of Experiencing Supervision of Doctoral Students’,Studies in Higher Education, 36, 7-19.

Garvey, R, Stokes, P & Megginson, D 2009, Coaching and mentoring theory and practice,

Sage, London.

Geber, H 2010, ‘Coaching for accelerated research productivity in Higher Education’,

International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 8, 64-78.

Goldsmith, M. 2006, ‘Try feedforward instead of feedback’, in M Goldsmith & L Lyons (eds.) Coaching for leadershipm, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.

Grant, AM & O'Connor, SA 2010, ‘The differential effects of solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice’, Industrial and

Grant, AM, Curtayne, L & Burton, G 2009, ‘Executive coaching enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being: a randomised controlled study’, Journal of Positive

Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice, 4, 396-407.

Grant, B & Pearson, M 2007, ‘Approaches to doctoral supervision in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand’, in D Carey and T Evans (eds.) Supervising doctorates downunder: Keys to

effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand, ACER,. Victoria.

Gregory, JB, Levy, PE & Jeffers, M 2008, 'Development of a model of the feedback process within executive coaching', Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 42-56.

Halse, C & Malfroy, J 2010, ‘Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work Studies

in Higher Education, 35, 79-92.

Hammond, J, Ryland, K, Tennant, M & Boud, D 2010, Building research supervision and

training across Australian universities, ALTC, Sydney.

Herman, C 2011, ‘Obstacles to success—doctoral student attrition in South Africa’,

Perspectives in Education: The changing face of doctoral education in South Africa 29, 40-52.

Holligan, C 2005. ‘Fact and fiction: a case history of doctoral supervision’, Educational

Research, 47, 267-278.

Hunt, JM & Weintraub, JR 2010, The coaching manager, Sage, Los Angeles.

Kaerner, A & Puura, V 2008, ‘Doctoral education in transition to knowledge-based society’,

Trames, 12, 95-109.

Kearns, H & Gardiner, M 2011, ‘The care and maintenance of your adviser’, Nature, 469, 570.

Kiley, M 2009, ‘Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates’,Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 293-304.

Kiley, M 2011, ‘Developments in research supervisor training: causes and responses’, Studies

in Higher Education, 36, 585-599.

Knowles, M, Holton SEF III, et al. 2005, The adult learner, Elsevier, San Diego, CA. Kolb, D 1984, Experiential learning, Prentice Hall, NY.

Lee, A & McKenzie, J 2011, ‘Evaluating doctoral supervision: tensions in eliciting students' perspectives’,Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 48, 69-78.

Leimon, A et al. 2005, Essential business coaching, Routledge.

Leshem, S 2007, ‘Thinking about conceptual frameworks in a research community of practice: a case of a doctoral programme’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 287-299.

Linley, PA 2006, ‘Strengths coaching: a potential-guided approach to coaching psychology’,

International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 37-46.

Mainhard, T, Van der Rijst, R, Van Tartwijk, J & Wubbels, T 2009, ‘A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship’,Higher Education, 58, 359-373.

Malfroy, J 2005, ‘Doctoral Supervision, Workplace Research and Changing Pedagogic Practices’,Higher Education Research and Development, 24, 165-178.

Maxwell, TW & Smyth, R 2010, ‘Research supervision: the research management matrix’,

Higher Education 59: 407-422.

McCallin, A & Nayar, S 2011, ‘Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice’,Teaching in Higher Education, 1-12.

McAlpine, L & Norton, J 2006, ‘Reframing our approach to doctoral programs: an integrative framework for action and research’,Higher Education Research and Development, 25, 3-17. McDowall, A & Millward, L 2010, ‘Feeding back, feeding forward and setting goals’, in S Palmer & A McDowall (eds.), The coaching relationship: Putting people first, Routledge, Hove, England.

McMahon, G 2009, ‘Cognitive behavioural coaching’ in D Megginson & D Clutterbuck (eds.), Further techniques for coachind and mentoring, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Mezirow, J 1990, ‘Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and

emancipatory learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Mullins, G & Kiley, M 2002, 'It's a PhD not a Nobel prize': how experienced examiners assess research theses’,Studies in Higher Education, 27, 369-286.

O'Broin, A & Palmer, S 2010, ‘Introducing an interpersonal perspective on the coaching relationship’, in S Palmer & A McDowall (eds.), The coaching relationship: putting people first, Routledge, Hove, East Sussex.

Paulson, J, Hopwood, N, McAlpine, L & Mills, D 2010, ‘Untold doctoral experiences: research findings and recommendations from a study into the challenges of doctoral study’, University of Oxford/Centre for Excellence in Preparing for Academic Practice, Oxford. Phillips, E & Pugh, DS 2010, How to get a PhD: a handbook for students and their supervisors, 5th edn, McGraw-Hill, Berkshire.

Reidy, J & Green, P 2005, ‘Collaborative knowledge management and the art of coaching: reflections on the diverse roles of the successful supervisor’, Supervising postgraduate

research : contexts and processes, theories and practices, RMIT University Press, 48-69.

Rostron, SS 2009, Business coaching international, Karnac, London.

Sambrook, S, Stewart, J & Roberts, C 2008, ‘Doctoral Supervision: A View from Above, Below and the Middle!’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32, 71-84.

Shacham, M & Od-Cohen, Y 2009, ‘Rethinking PhD learning: incorporating communities of practice’,Innovations in Education and Teaching International 46(3), 279-292.

Spence, G & Grant, AM 2007, ‘Professional and peer life coaching and the enhancement of goal striving and well-being: An exploratory study’, Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 185-194.

Stokes, P. & McCulloch, A 2010, ‘A generational analysis of the “How to Get a PhD…” literature: Towards a classification of the genre’, in M Kiley (ed.) 9th Quality in Postgraduate

Research Conference: Educating researchers for the 21st century, Adelaide: ANU.

Stracke, E & Kumar, V 2010, ‘Feedback and self regulated learning: insights from

supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports’,Reflective Practice, 11, 19-32.

Szoltzfus, T 2008, Coaching questions: a coach's guide to powerful asking skills, Coach22, Virginia Beach, VA.

Vilkinas, T 2002, ‘The PhD process: the supervisor as manager’, Education + Training, 44, 129-137.

Whitmore, J 2009, Coaching for performance, Nicholas Brealey, London.

Wilson, C 2007, ‘Best practice in performance coaching: a handbook for leaders, coaches,

HR professionals, and organizations, Kogan Page,London/Philadelphia.

Wisker, G 2005, The good supervisor, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Wisker, G & McAlpine, L 2009, ‘Embracing contraries in research on doctoral education: the richness of conceptual diversity’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 249-251.

Wisker, G, Robinson, G & Shacham, M 2007, ‘Postgraduate resarch success: communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities’, Innovations in Education & Teaching International 44, 301-320.

Wong, LCJ & Wong, PTP 2010, ‘What helps and what hinders thesis completion: a critical incident study’,International Journal of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 2. Zeus, P & Skiffington, S 2000, Complete guide to coaching at work, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.