Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42775351›Full record

ArticleDiscourse studies2026

The cooperative coaching client: Clients' responding activities to wh-questions for solution generation in coaching.

Melanie Fleischhacker, Eva-Maria Graf, Sanna Vehviläinen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Discourse studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Melanie FleischhackerUniversity of Klagenfurt, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8938-1396
Eva-Maria GrafUniversity of Klagenfurt, Austria.
Sanna VehviläinenUniversity of Eastern Finland, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While solution generation and question-answer sequences are key to change in coaching, little is known about the role of questions with a solution-oriented agenda. Even less research exists on clients' (cooperative) responding activities. To breach this gap, we used Conversation Analysis to investigate responses to wh-questions for solution generation with a special focus on the continuum of (dis-)aligning and (dis-)affiliating responses and the degrees of clients' (un-)cooperativeness. The sequential analysis yielded five response categories: "no(n) answer," "repair initiation," "not answering and refocusing," "answering" and "extended answering." While the response possibility space includes a range of (un-)cooperative reactions, clients display an overall willingness to answer questions with a solution-generating function: "answering" and "extended answering" make up 68.9% of responses. Additionally, in-depth analyses revealed further cooperative behaviors. Apart from their interactional cooperativeness, this suggests an interaction-type specific readiness of coaching clients to participate in their own change process, that is, an institutional cooperativeness.

Indexed as

business coachingclient cooperativenessclients’ responding activitiesconversation analysisquestions for solution generationwh-questions

Identifiers

PMID42775351
PMCPMC13596994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.