Where philosophy meets culture: exploring how coaches conceptualise their roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although conceptually attractive, coaching in medicine remains ill-defined, with little examination of the transferability of coaching principles from other fields. Here we explore how coaching is enacted both within and outside of medicine; we aim to understand both the elements required for coaching to be useful and the factors that may influence its translation to the medical education context. METHODS: In this constructivist grounded theory study, we interviewed 24 individuals across three groups: physicians who consider themselves coaches in clinical learning settings (n = 8), physicians with experience as sports, arts or business coaches (n = 10), and sports coaches without medical backgrounds (n = 6). Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using constant comparison to identify themes and explore their relationships. RESULTS: We identified a shared philosophy of coaching, comprising three core elements that our participants endorsed regardless of the coaching context: (i) mutual engagement, with a shared orientation towards growth and development; (ii) ongoing reflection involving both learners and coaches, and (iii) an embrace of failure as a catalyst for learning. Enacting these features appeared to be influenced by culture, which affected how coaching was defined and developed, how the coaching role was positioned within the learning context, and how comfortably vulnerability could be expressed. Participants struggled to clearly define the coaching role in medicine, instead acknowledging that the lines between educational roles were often blurred. Further, the embrace of failure appeared challenging in medicine, where showing vulnerability was perceived as difficult for both learners and teachers. CONCLUSIONS: Medical education's embrace of coaching should be informed by an understanding of both coach and learner behaviours that need to be encouraged and trained, and the cultural and organisational supports that are required to foster success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".