The role of coaching across the retirement transition: A descriptive phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By 2037, a quarter of the UK population will be aged over-65 (Office for National Statistics, 2018). Improvements in life expectancy are enabling more of us to reach retirement age and to have more years in retirement. The transition to retirement is complex and impacts many aspects of our lives - family, relationships, finances, health and social circumstances (Palmer and Panchal, 2011). There is evidence to suggest 30% of retirees find the transition to retirement difficult and experience a downturn in well-being (Bosse et al, 1991). Research into retirement transition interventions is minimal so this study begins with a literature review that examines the theoretical and empirical support for transition coaching as a viable intervention for the retirement transition. For this first UK study into retirement coaching, six retired participants were telephone interviewed and retrospectively recalled their coaching experiences. Each interview was analysed using Giorgi’s descriptive phenomenological approach to produce a general essence articulating a typical transition experience. Six key themes emerged as important. Three pre-retirement themes (planning, decision-making and unexpected events) had a limited, mainly practical role for coaching. Post-retirement however, coaching was described as pivotal. Each of the three themes (redressing the balance, identity and aging) required deeper psychological support to identify core values, manage identity loss and discuss existential fears about aging. Participants valued core coaching principles like a safe space, trusted relationship, reflection, support and challenge. Interestingly, at least two coaches were used per retiree to address their transition needs perhaps inferring a requirement for greater versatility amongst coaches.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".