Case Studies

This format is designed to present practice-based ethical dilemmas that invite reflection and support the development of ethical discernment in coaching, supervision, and related professional contexts.

Case studies should focus on real or realistic scenarios and surface the ethical tensions involved, rather than offering solutions or prescriptive guidance.

They are intended as reflective, inquiry-oriented resources, not fully developed teaching interventions or facilitator guides. While reflective questions may be included, they are not expected to be exhaustive or to direct interpretation. Educators and practitioners are encouraged to engage with and adapt the material according to their own contexts and pedagogical approaches.

Length

1000–2500 words (including reflective questions, excluding references)

Confidentiality

Where based on real cases, all individuals and organisations must be fully anonymised. 

Authors are responsible for ensuring appropriate confidentiality and anonymisation.

Use third-person descriptors initially (e.g., coach, client), followed by fictional names where appropriate.

If fictional, ensure names and organisations are not identifiable as real entities.

Submission Format

Please include:

  1. Title
  2. Author(s)
  3. Case Declaration
    Indicate whether the case is:
    • Fictional
    • Anonymised from real practice
  4. Overview (max 200 words)
    A brief introduction to the case and its central ethical focus.
    Referencing may be included.
  5. Keywords (5)
  6. Contextual and Ethical Framing (approx. 300–500 words)
    Provide concise conceptual or ethical context for the case that supports the reader’s understanding, rather than standing as a separate theoretical discussion.

     

    This section should:

    • Situate the case within relevant literature or professional discourse
    • Introduce key ideas or frameworks that inform the ethical tensions
    • Support the reader’s understanding without becoming a full literature review
  7. Case Narrative (approx. 800–1400 words)
    (No referencing within this section)

    Present the case clearly and with sufficient detail to illuminate the ethical tensions.

    This may include:

    • Background and context
    • Nature of the assignment or relationship
    • Development of the situation
    • Points of tension or challenge

    Dialogue may be used where helpful, but should remain purposeful and concise.

  8. Key Ethical Tensions (3–6 points)
    Identify the key ethical dynamics present in the case, including both prominent and less immediately visible tensions.

    These should:

    • Highlight dilemmas or pressures
    • Reflect complexity and competing considerations
    • Surface areas of ambiguity or uncertainty where relevant
    • Avoid suggesting solutions or prescribing action
  9. Reflective Questions (3)

    Questions should:

    • Arise directly from the case
    • Invite reflection rather than resolution
    • Support discussion in practice, supervision, or learning contexts
  10. References (APA format)
  11. Generative AI Disclosure

Authors should include a statement outlining any use of generative AI tools where such use has materially contributed to the substantive content, analysis, or intellectual framing of the work.

The use of generative AI as part of idea development, reflection, language refinement, or editorial support does not require disclosure. This is considered analogous to engaging with colleagues, mentors, or other forms of intellectual exchange.

Authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the work. Generative AI tools must not be used to produce content that is presented as the author’s own without substantive author input, interpretation, and validation.

Please select and adapt the statement that best reflects your use.

    1. No generative AI used
      No generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.
    2. Substantive contribution to writing or content
      Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) were used to support aspects of substantive content development or drafting. All content has been critically reviewed, verified, and finalised by the author(s).
    3. Methodological or analytical use
      Generative AI tools were used in aspects of data analysis or methodological processing. All analytical decisions, interpretations, and conclusions were conducted and validated by the author(s).
    4. Visual content generation (if applicable)
      Generative AI tools were used in the development of figures or visual materials. All outputs were reviewed and refined by the author(s).