Coaching is being increasingly seen as social activity which promotes conversation to deepen knowledge, challenge predisposition, create novel understanding and possibilities (Shoukry and Cox, 2018), positioning coaching a is relational, humanist, meaning-making practice (Garvey, 2011). This rationalises the significance of human experience, meaning and sense-making over measurements. 

Our focus is how to research coaching in a way that does justice to lived experiences of various stakeholders of coaching? 

Having this focus does not mean we are renouncing other ways of knowledge development; rather, we are emphasising that how social actors interpret their experience facilitates a naturalistic way of knowing. Such approaches respect what happens in coaching rather than reducing coaching to a few different variables.  

In this blog, we outline Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as a powerful methodology that appreciates human experience in coaching and present our reflections of using IPA as researchers and practitioners.  

Coaching as a lived experience 

Coaching takes many forms and it is practiced in diverse contexts. Consequently, resulting in many forms of meaning and interpretation of, for example, what coaching is, how it is practiced, how coaching facilitates learning and development, individual, organisational and social change. Such diversity of meaning is primarily owing to its human and social nature. We recognise this diversity, which means we also recognise individuals as having authority to give meaning and shape their understanding (Garvey, 2017).  

The meaning that diverse stakeholders attribute to coaching is informed by the context, their philosophical underpinnings, and purpose of their practice. Coaching will, therefore, continue to evolve, be redefined, reinterpreted. This means, rather than attempting to regulate coaching, it is much more important to understand the diversity of practices and help them to flourish by acknowledging the limitations and potentials of such divergences and convergences (Garvey, et al, 2024).  

For this, capturing the essence of human experiences and how they interpret events, processes, places and procedures is vital. Because subjective understanding is a powerful conduit of truth, focusing on human experience is a valid avenue of inquiry (Bachkirova and Kauffman, 2008).  

What is IPA and how does it fit coaching research?  

IPA is originally a health psychological research methodology invented by Prof. Jonathan Smith in 1996 which is now employed in various disciplines. Rajasinghe (2020) positioned it as a relevant research methodology for coaching. Since then, it has gained wider popularity among coaching researchers.  

IPA is informed by three philosophical underpinnings: 

Phenomenology – focuses on the lived experience of human beings (coaches, coachees, supervisors etc.). 

Hermeneutics (theory of interpretation) - focuses on how people make sense of their experiences.  

Idiography – focuses on the unique, subjective experiences of individuals rather than focusing on establishing general laws that are applicable to wider population (Nomothetic approach) 

To understand what actually happens in the lived world, IPA asks a simple but profound question:  

How do people make sense of their experiences?  

In coaching research; for example:  

• How coachees experience insights, challenges or support 

• How coaches make sense of ethical tensions and relational dynamics, their learning and development 

• How meaning unfolds over the course of a coaching/supervisory relationship 

These evidence that IPA seeks to understand, rather than measure coaching.  

We are aware that the terms ‘interpretative phenomenological analysis’ and its theoretical foundations sound highly philosophical and may distract novice researchers. However, the brief description above reveals how IPA closely relates to coaching. That is, to help our clients to interpret their experiences of a phenomenon by asking relevant questions and challenging their predispositions. We then, interpret the experiences of coachee’s to co-create a different understanding which often results in actionable, relevant knowledge leading to transformation. So, is this knowledge valid?  Perhaps not, if the validity is seen from positivist lenses.  

As mentioned earlier, IPA is not the only way forward, our attempt here is to encourage you to explore possibilities. If this resonates with you, we encourage you to explore the philosophical positions of IPA, its study designs, and analytical procedures through the wider IPA literature; Smith et al., (2022), the seminal work on the methodology. For coaching, Rajasinghe, (2020) may be a good starting point and as you grow in confidence, you may innovate within the methodology (see Rajasinghe et al., 2024) and avoid being overly reliant on procedures laid out in the literature.  

Having outlined how IPA fits within coaching research, we now share reflections from our own experiences as IPA researchers, and as  having supervised, coached, and mentored fellow researchers in this space."  We hope these reflections inspire both practitioners and scholars to confidently consider IPA as a potential methodology  

 

Getting to know about IPA and becoming a confident researcher (Dr. Duminda Rajasinghe) 

I got to know about IPA during my PhD, in 2020, I published a paper introducing IPA as a coaching research methodology and then supported number of my colleagues, friends and the wider network to improve their understanding of how IPA can be used in their doctoral studies. I also lead/co-lead number of research projects/publications in coaching (Rajasinghe et al., 2022; Burt et al., 2024; Rajasinghe and Garvey, 2023), and beyond (see Rajasinghe et al., 2021; Aluthgama-Baduge et al., 2025). Recently, with an expert team of coach practitioners and academics (see Rajasinghe et al., 2024), we innovated within IPA methodology conducting an international study to understand how coaches learn and develop. Such innovation is possible with enhanced confident in using the methodology and understanding its core philosophical underpinnings. As I continue to learn and immerse with the methodology, not to become a slave and blindly follow the guidance but to have a more critical questioning instance, I invite you to reflect on suitability of IPA as a coaching research methodology. Remember, it takes time to know but continuous learning is the way forward.  

Supervising PhDs and DBA of coaching and publishing IPA research (Prof. Bob Garvey) 

I have supervised and examined several PhDs and engaged in IPA research myself. The IPA approach is part of the subjectivist research paradigm, which is detailed, rigorous and deeply scientific.  Its objective is to understand the experiences of the individual participants. In my case, this has always been in relation to coaching.  This maybe from the coachee's perspective or the coach's and in a few cases, both.  

 

In my experience the researcher tries to honour the participant's experience through deep reflection within the hermeneutic tradition. This has often led to variations in the IPA approach.  This is very much in line with IPA philosophy, and the variations are always made with the strong intention of understanding the subtleties of the individual participant's experience.  

 

IPA is a methodology in its own right. This means that it is not solely about a technique, but it is also underpinned by a phenomenological philosophical stance.   It is not as, positivists would suggest, something to be done before doing a large-scale statistical study. Such studies are about broad-brush strokes.  IPA is about fine detail. The intents and purposes are different.  

 

Due to the focus on the detail experiences of individuals, the IPA approach is very time consuming, therefore it typically involves small, homogenous samples. Its aim is not to generalise but to develop insights and explore transferability into other similar contexts.  IPA contributes to theory development and shaping practice rather than testing theories. 

 

In coaching activities, IPA provides valuable insight into coaching experiences and holds potential to foster meaningful practice changes 

 

Working with a team of practitioners and researcher on an IPA research project on coach development (Prof. David Clutterbuck) 

When it came to exploring the issue of coach maturity, we already had a model derived from observation in coach assessment centres. Our initial thought was to design a research approach that would validate (or not) that model. Instead, we decided to apply a completely different methodology. IPA fitted the bill because: 

• It did not attempt to measure against existing frameworks or validate existing theory 

• It permitted context to emerge from participants’ narratives 

• It revealed and valued diversity of participants’ experience, as well as commonalities 

• It decreased the likelihood that the researchers would impose their own biases on the outcomes but appreciated the role of researcher in knowledge construction.  

Human interactions are complex, messy and often unpredictable. On their own, both quantitative and qualitative methods may yield simplistic solutions to complex, adaptive phenomena. IPA isn’t totally immune to this, but the combination of the IPA approach and multiple researchers working together does provide a robust model for future research projects in coaching, mentoring, leadership and related fields. 

Exploring IPA as a research methodology for a proposed IOC led research (Taruna Aggarwal) 

I am currently considering IPA as a potential methodology for a proposed IOC-led study that asks how professional coaches experience the practice of cross-cultural coaching - their lived experience and how they make sense of the dynamics that arise in their practice when western models encounter Asian cultural diversity. IPA feels like the right choice for the study as we want to understand what the coach notices, what they struggle with, how they feel and make sense of what is happening within them.  

IPA's idiographic commitment makes it particularly well-suited to exploring the unique experiences of coaches whose practices are culturally and socially embedded and are therefore richly diverse and complex. This diversity allows researchers to sit with the complexity - understand how individual coaches navigate, before asking what might be shared across different stories. 

Furthermore, IPA’s acknowledgement of double hermeneutics makes the process more human, as it does not claim researcher's neutrality. For a study conducted by practitioners that explores the experience of other practitioners, I feel that the methodology offers a natural process for knowledge development.  

Concluding Remarks 

Actively appreciating human experience as a source of knowledge is long argued but it is shadowed by the demands of dominated philosophical views of positivism.  Such demands were also fuelled by organisations and individuals who support the universalist view of coaching. Thus, could we genuinely engage with human experience to build a richer more balanced and inclusive understanding of coaching?  

 

References 

Aluthgama-Baduge, C., Rajasinghe, D., Ilonen, S., & Gilman, M. (2025). Facilitating entrepreneurship in higher education through practitioner integration: A closer look at the “entrepreneur in residence” initiative. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 31(8), 2008–2026. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-08-2023-0905 

Bachkirova, T., & Kauffman, C. (2008). Many ways of knowing: How to make sense of different research perspectives in studies of coaching. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(2), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521880802328186 

Burt, S., Rajasinghe, D., Garvey, B., Barosa-Pereira, A., & Clutterbuck, D. (2024). What do coaches actually do to learn and develop? A qualitative exploration of the development narratives of experienced coaches. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 22(2), 80–97. 

Garvey, B. (2011). A very short, fairly interesting, and reasonably cheap book about coaching and mentoring. Sage. 

Garvey, B. (2017). Issues of assessment and accreditation of coaches. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching (pp. 680–695). Sage. 

Garvey, B., Dierolf, K., & Clutterbuck, D. (2024). Suppose everything we knew about coach education was wrong. Organisations & People, 9(1), 8–29. 

Rajasinghe, D. (2020). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as a coaching research methodology. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 13(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2019.1694554 

Rajasinghe, D., Aluthgama-Baduge, C., & Mulholland, G. (2021). Researching entrepreneurship: An approach to develop subjective understanding. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(4), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2019-0601 

Rajasinghe, D., Garvey, B., Smith, W.-A., et al. (2022). On becoming a coach: Narratives of learning and development. The Coaching Psychologist, 18(2), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpstcp.2022.18.2.4 

Rajasinghe, D., & Garvey, B. (2023). How experiencing executive coaching helps coachees to feel they are independent learners and self-coaches: An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 21(2), 162–178. 

Rajasinghe, D., Garvey, B., Burt, S., Barosa-Pereira, A., & Clutterbuck, D. (2024). Innovative interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach in a coaching research project: Implications for future qualitative coaching research and beyond. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, 17(2), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2024.2358771 

Shoukry, H., & Cox, E. (2018). Coaching as a social process. Management Learning, 49(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507618779559 

 

Author profiles 

Duminda Rajasinghe, PhD, is an author, researcher and educator. He works as a senior lecturer, executive coach and academic mentor at Nottingham Business school, Nottingham Trent University.  

Taruna Agrawal, is an experienced Executive and Life Coach, Coach Educator and Mentor, ardent researcher. She is Director of Asia at the Institute of Coaching 

Professor Bob Garvey, PhD is one of Europe’s leading academic practitioners of coaching and mentoring and an experienced coach/mentor.   

David Clutterbuck, PhD is one of the original pioneers of coaching and mentoring, co-founder of the European Mentoring & Coaching Council, EMCC Master Practitioner and author of more than 75 books.