Critically Consider the Extent to which Discourse in Sports Coaching Literature Lacks Engagement Regarding Inquiry about Coaches’ Experience.

“Players need to have access to quality coaches, coaches WHO have the mentality of self improvement. If we can become better teachers of the game, we will produce better players’’.

Stuart Pearce. – Under 21 National Coach

Introduction

To a small extent coaching discourse does engage enquiry about coaching experience but only in a scientific, power-dominated hierarchical relationship, context.  There is a question surrounding how power and influence around coaching can impact on the amount of engagement regarding enquiry on coaches’ experiences within coach development.

It has been argued that writing about personal experiences has a number of advantages.  Hoover (1994), Considers that writing about the solving of a problem improves the whole process of problem solving.  Indeed, Connolly and Clandinin (1994) Contend that reading and writing one’s own narrative of practice helps us arrive at a deeper understanding of ourselves and our own practice.  Watkins, Carnell, Lodege and Whalley (2001) developed the notion of met – learning, for example making sense of one’s experiences of learning.  For all learners including those involved in coaching this is a valuable idea because novice coaches can then implement or adapt techniques from elite coaches, past experiences.

However prestige, power and influence associated with discourse can discourage coaches from engaging in discussion about their experiences.  Johns and Johns (2000) concur with this statement and demonstrate the target of promotions related to a coach’s position of power as a factor influencing the lack of engagement in coaching experiences.  Other problems with enquiry about coaches experiences are beliefs and ideologies are different with every coach, resulting in either conflict or enquiry.  Discourses are formed by beliefs, ideologies, and power arrangements, and consequently are reflective of those social constructs (Cherryholmes, 1988).  These social construct enter the realm of coach – athlete relationship.

An illusion is created by the higher level of coaches are preserved to be in prestige’s positions which placed more emphasis on paranoia and others perception of their own personal experiences.  This illusion is created by the hierarchical relationship between the coach and the athlete and can be adapted to show a hierarchical relationship between coaches as well. 

This assignment will look at the influences surrounding the lack of engagement regarding enquiry about coaches’ experience in sports coaching literature through discourse.   However, what part of the experience does a coach choose to in quire?  Penney (2000) highlights the issue of whom and what coach education and coaches ought to promote and exclude, which merit consideration.  Thus demonstrating the importance of what we enquiry affects the quality of the discourse or is it the choice of enquiry ‘we’ choose to engage that justifies the quality of such sports coaching literature.  With regards to discourse, coaches and athletes alike are effected by what is written.

Discussion

McGannon and Mauws (2000) define discourse as the language – in – use and the power that such language has over perception and behaviour.  In this way, discourse endorses certain possibility for thought while dismissing others.  Putting this definition to a coach in a position of power, key factors appear around trust and credibility to the coach – athlete relationship and their own career reputation or aspirations.  Horne’s (2008) model of coaching effectiveness justifies this.  According to the model, coaches’ overt behaviours in practices and competition are directly influenced by self – perceptions.  There is a hidden paradox inherent in the engagement regarding enquiry about experience from elite coaches, stemming from the fact that the coach wishes to retain or preserve the freshness and openness of a ‘beginner’, whilst also acquiring greater robustness and resilience in difficult circumstances.  Harrison (2008) describes this paradox as a ‘castle and battlefield’ metaphor.  On the one hand a strong container is needed and on the other vulnerability to allow the coach to be affected and even hurt by the coaching experience. 

However, Harrison (2008) fails to mention that elite coaches do not want to show vulnerability because it may harm the legitimacy of power – dominated means of preparing largely unquestioned athletes (Cassidy,2004).  In relation to enquiry about coaches’ experiences, if an elite coach engages in discourse it creates a possible risk of a lack of credibility in there current position.  Power and influence play a dominant role in coach – athlete relationship and Cassidy (2004) justifies, coaches in prestige’s position have gained power.  If a coach then engages to enquiry about their own knowledge of experiences then their self – perception is that they loose power.  Consequently, any meanings we construct from information given are likely to be greatly affected by the choice of descriptors, metaphors and analogies used by the speaker, as they frame the activity for us.  Such framing has been described as having the ability to paint pictures in our head, with all the resultant implications (Sabo and Jensen, 1994).  Discourse, then, as described by Ball (1990), is essentially about power; it is about ‘who can speak where, when and with what authority’.  Hence, it becomes not only about what is said and heard but also about what is not, as what is left out in addition to what is included will influence participants.  It is the fear as a coach to forget information we should be given and thus get criticised for it.  Combined Sabo, Jensen and Ball’s theories with the influence of what is left out also results in a possible conflict in the coach – athlete relationship.  However it is important to see that due to the constant battle of pride over ideologies, coaches will engage in conflict rather than enquire.

Implemented ideas by the F.A.

Johns and Johns (2000) emphasise that, the discourse of modern sport is embedded in a performance pedagogy, which is based on scientific functionalism.  Similarly, much of the current coaching discourse is also biomedical in nature, which arguably has emanated from coaches and officials whose positions of power depend on its promotion.  It is a discourse that favours technical description and procedure, with value placed on the specialist ‘factual’ knowledge of coaches to provide direction and sequence (Prain and Hickey, 1995).  However Coaching is problematic and the establishment of clear and achievable goals becomes difficult.  As a consequence, coaches have bee encouraged to ‘take charge’ and control the coaching process, which includes their athletes, as much as possible (Seaborn, 1998). Current coach – athlete relationships are characterised by rank and power, with one party seen as having knowledge, and the other as needing it.  Thus emphasising the hierarchical discourse often associated with coaching.  Slack (2000) Demonstrates how discourse tends to bolster the status quo, inclusive of the ‘common sense’ assumption that coaches should learn from the front.  Stuart Pearce (England under 21 National Coach), states players need to have access to quality coaches, coaches who have the mentality of self improvement. If we can become better teachers of the game, we will produce better players.  It is a positive step for The F.A. to recognise the important aspect in coach development however they have not made any attempts to solve the problem via a Conference.  Perhaps this is to do with the F.A structure formed from many satellite centres throughout England.  In Comparison With the Dutch Football Association, all county’s are under the same umbrella with regards to quality and standards for coach education.  Thus being able to perform change more effectively.

However to say that there is no engagement in discourse within the UK would be very naive.  Central to the work of The F.A. national Faculty is the desire to help coaches become effective learners (Insight, The F.A. Coaches Association journal, 2007).The F.A. organised football coaches to receive tips from World Cup hero and Eric Harrison.  Get into Football (2009) states The trainee coaches spent the day with World Cup legend Sir Geoff Hurst, McDonald’s Director of Football, as well as leading football coach Eric Harrison who was responsible for nurturing the careers of many Premiership stars at Manchester United during his time there as a youth coach.  During the coaching master-class, the coaches were involved in both practical and theory sessions led by experienced coaches from the London FA.  As well as picking up skills and drills, the coaches also had the opportunity to ask Hurst and Harrison questions relating to their football experiences.  Sir Geoff Hurst commented: “This was a fantastic opportunity for people interested in coaching to get exposure to quality football coaching taught to them by professional coaches. ’’In this Coach – Coach Relationship the boundaries of hierarchy are forgotten and both experienced coached saw the opportunity to solve problems.  Vygotsky’s (1978) view that learners (the coach) are Capable of performing to higher intellectual levels when asked to work in collaborative situations. Hope Powell, the England Women’s Head Coach, received a warm welcome at the West Riding FA when she gave a mentoring session for aspiring young coaches in the women’s game. Later in the evening, both Hope and Rachel were happy to answer questions from all who attended. They concluded by urging clubs, schools, centre’s of excellence and County FAs to work together to push the women’s game forward and thanked the team at West Riding County FA for their hard work in organising the evening.  Thus demonstrating the opportunity to discuss another coach’s experiences.  Critically assessing The F.A, perhaps it does support the use of engaging in other coaches experiences to develop the home grown coaches.  Cassidy (2004) supports this claim and also highlights, through giving us the ability to uncover what determines actions and thoughts, it also gives us the freedom to explore other discursive coaching options, thus opening the search for ways to ‘do it better’.

Alternative coaching discourse.

Getting coaches to critically examine their discourse leads to a better understanding of self and one’s behaviour, whilst encouraging them to ‘ think outside the square’ to creatively solve problems.  It consequently offers the potential for coaches to be central to, and proactive in, shaping the future of coaching and coach education pathways.  In terms of Program subject and content, John Peacock The FA’s Head of Coaching (2009) declared, it was clear that primary curriculum emphasis was on delivery of technical information, development of sport specific technical skills and evaluation of specific sessions.  Programmes focused on the evaluation of session programmes, which specific attention being direct to session construction and technical content.  Therefore forgetting the idea of engaging the experience with other coaches so that we can, if desired, ‘change our talk’ and, because language is reflective of our realities, ‘change our practice’ (Wood and Kroger 2000).  A failure to provide an underpinning structure to support experimental learning is unlikely to allow coaches to explore the nuances of their own practice, access and develop tacit knowledge and be creative in their application of sport specific technical knowledge.

Cassidy, Stanley and Bartlett (2006) discuss the use of video feedback as a technological tool for coaches to improve their learning environment. Their analysis raises questions and issues about the type of learning environment that coaches are creating when using video feedback with their athletes. From a designer perspective, video feedback technologies are developed to facilitate coaches’ work. Yet, coaches and coach educators need to consider these types of technological advances in light of the athletes’ needs, level of development, and experiences.

After every football match, both managers of competing clubs are interviewed about their opinion on how the match went.  In line of current educational thinking, and in an effort to enhance reflection on coaching, each interview can be seen as two different sources of discourse challenging one another.  Impression management influences that discourse because it is a process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them (Verhey, 1993). 

In front of a camera viewed by much of the public, the coaches would find it very hard to be themselves due to power dominant themes within their role as a football coach.

Roberto Di Matteo, when he was first team coach at West Bromwich Albion Football Club, would only conduct training sessions behind closed doors and will not allow anyone to watch him. Sound coaching practice has been represented by a set of coaching behaviours believed to be important in achieving the goal of improving athlete performance. Desired coach behaviours include communication, decision-making, instruction, and technical and tactical strategy and mental preparation (Hall, 2007). Cumming, Smith and Smoll (2006) recently described the two measurement traditions addressing coach behaviour. They also clearly indicate that the majority of coach assessment has highlighted the athlete’s perceptions and reactions to coach behaviour. Furthermore, the categories of behaviour assessment have heavily focused on communication behaviour (e.g., decision making style, delivery of positive feedback, responses to athlete mistakes, and situational nature of instruction). Whereas, Coté (1995) pointed to the importance of examining contextual factors that influence both coach behaviour and athlete perceptions, they also focused on the coach- athlete relationship. Demers, Woodburn and Savard (2006) describe the development of a competency-based approach to coach education that focuses on the development and implementation of specific desirable skills by coaches. However, relatively little research has addressed coaches’ own perceptions of the content of their coaching, yet this is the dominant focus of coach education. Much of the literature fails to justify the coach’s behaviour to the external environment they conduct their sessions in. In relation to Roberto Di Matteo, elite level of football is seen as a business. Therefore other coaches are seen as rivals and your position at the club relates to how many games you win and how much income you can bring to the club.

Combine Video analysis with focus groups

Current research describes discourse as the manner we speak to influence our behaviour and the interactions we have with others (McGannon and Mauws 200).  In this respect, knowledge of its power can help us better manage and frame conversations towards preferred ends.  Engagement in coaching discourse would allow the deconstruct the signifies, behaviours and language of coaches in considering the logic of their privileged positions, and why they come to define themselves and their athletes in particular ways.  The discourse has also resulted in coach – initiation, athlete – response, coach evaluation pattern of interaction (Prain and Hickey, 1995).  Such a structure can easily degenerate into being automatic ‘recitations’ (Cazden, 1998) rather than opportunities for athletes to genuinely interact verbally and develop new understandings.  Within such conversations, coaches inevitably control the turn- taking contribution, thus ensuring that a desired gender is maintained.  Gender may also be controlled within a focus group, which may also be used to engage in discourse of coaches experiences due to its privacy and relaxed environment.  Krueger and Casey, (2006) identify the use of focus groups to uncover factors that influence opinions, behaviour or motivations and they can provide insight into complicated subjects.  All factors that have a massive influence on coaching discourse.  In a focus group, probing questions (‘how did you deal with the situation?  How did that make you feel?’), clarification probes (‘I don’t quite get it, tell me again? What do you mean by…?’), and elaboration probes (‘Tell me more about that?’) are used to determine true opinions and to ensure that responses obtained were as consistent as possible in terms of depth and complexity (Patton, 1990).  The focus group can be video recorded, transcribed, and the content analysed using the procedures recommended by Patton (1990) for inductive content analysis.  The use all the discourse information video analysis combined with a focus group can optimise the enquiry with detail.  The process involves organising raw data into interpretable and meaningful themes and categories that emerge from quotations (Patton, 1990).  In view of the researcher’s prior knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation, the analysis process was inevitably influenced by preconceived ideas and values (Rees and Hardy, 2000).  Thus the interviewer is in control of the gender and can guide the discussion in order to seek out enquiry around the discourse.

Concluding Thoughts

A failure to provide an underpinning structure to support experimental learning is unlikely to allow coaches to explore the nuances of their own practice, access and develop tacit knowledge and be creative in their application of sport specific technical knowledge.  Coach educators must move beyond traditional education structures and processes to embrace what other professionals already recognise, namely that coaches experiences engagement has to be actively developed to maximise learning.  The discourse that currently dominates sports coaching can be seen as providing boundaries that define the nature of the coach – athlete relationship and the roles of each party within it.  It is a discourse used by a scientific, performance pedagogy (Cassidy, 2004), emanating from a power – dominated hierarchical relationship where the coach is seen as knowledgeable and the athlete not.

In concluding this research, the words of penny (2000) best justify the statement that little extent of engaging enquiry are performed on coaches experiences, she stated ‘we are not all going to agree upon what the focus of attention should be, what aims our energies should be directed to, and how these can be best achieved’ (penny, 2000).  However, there is a need to be aware of the variety of discourse that can potentially, and perhaps should, find expression in coaching, whilst recognising that these will have different implications for the interest of different groups.  The issues of whom and what coach education and coaches ought to promote and exclude, which merit consideration (penny, 2000).  Coaches need to create effective learning environments where they can challenge and stimulate themselves to take responsibility for their own learning.  This may include engagement on their past experiences.  Problem – solving, group work and questioning should be encouraged throughout coach education programmes.  

 

To ensure we modernise our approach to coaching, we need to completely review and modernise how we assess coaches experiences and the settings that produce the best result.

Reference List

·           Ball, S.J. (1990). Politics and Policy making in Education: explorations in policy sociology, London Routledge.

·         Cassidy, T., Jones, R. & Potrac, P. (2004) Understanding sports coaching: the social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice .London, Routledge.

·         Cassidy, T., & Tinning, R. (2004). 'Slippage' is not a dirty word: Considering the usefulness of Giddens' notion of knowledgeability in understanding the possibilities for teacher education. Journal of Teaching Education. 15(2) 175-188.

·         Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

·         Cherryholmes, CH. (1988). Power and criticism: PoststructuraI investigations in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

·         Connolly, F., Clandinin, D.J. 1994, Telling teaching stories, Teacher Education quarterly.  21(1), 145 – 158.

·         Côté, J., Salmela, J. H. & Russell, S. J. (1995) The Knowledge of High-Performance Gymnastic Coaches: Competition and Training Considerations, The Sport Psychologist,  9, 76-95.

·         Cumming, S.P., Smith, R.E., & Smoll, F.L. (2006). Athlete-perceived coaching behaviors in sport: Relating two research traditions. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 205-213.

·         Demers, G., Woodburn, A.J. and Savard, C. (2006) The Development of an Undergraduate Competency-Based Coach Education Program, The Sport Psychologist,  20, 162-173.

·         Hall, N., Jedlic, B., Munroe-Chandler, K. and Hall, C. (2007) The Effects of an Education Program on Coaches’ Encouragement of Imagery Use, International Journal of Coaching Science, In Press.

·         Harrison, C.J., (2008) Coaching Research and Coach Education: Do the Sum of the Parts Equal the Whole? Part 1, September, Retrieved October 1^st, 2008 from http://www.sportsmedia.org/Sportapolisnewsletter4.htm.

·         Hoover, L, 1994, Reflective writing as a window on pre – service teachers’ thought processes Teaching and teacher Education. 10: 83 – 93.

·         Horne, J., Tomlinson, A. and Whannel, G. (1999) Understanding Sport. An Introduction to the Sociological and Cultural Analysis of Sport. London: E. & F.N.Spon.

·         Johns, D.P., and Johns, J. (2000) 'Surveillance, subjectivism and technologies of power: An analysis of the discursive practice of high-performance sport', International Review for the Sociology of sport, 35: 219 – 234.

·         Krueger, R.A., and Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

·         McGannon, K.R., and Mauws, M.K. (2000) 'Discursive psychology: An alternative approach for studying adherence to exercise and physical activity', Quest, 52: 148 – 165.

·         Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, London: Sage.

·         Penney, D., and Chandler, T. (2000). Physical education: What future(s)? Sport, Education and Society, 5(1), 71–89.

·        Prain, V. and Hickey, C. (1995) Using Discourse Analysis to Change Physical Education, QUEST, pp. 76-90.

·         Rees, T., & Hardy, L. (2000). An investigation into the stress support experiences of high-level sports performers. The psychologist, (14), 327-347.Rodrigo, G., Lusiardo,

·         Sabo, D. and Jansen, S.C. (1994) `Seen But Not Heard: Images of Black Men in Sports Media', in M.A. Messner and D.F. Sabo (eds) Sex, Violence and Power in Sports: Rethinking Masculinity. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.

·         Seaborn, P., Trudel, P. and Gilbert, W., (1998) ‘Instructional Content Provided to Female Ice Hockey Players during Games’, Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual 13: 119–41.

·         Slack, T. (2000) ‘Managing voluntary sports organizations: a critique of popular trends’, in R.L. Jones and K.M. Armour (eds) Sociology of Sports: Theory and Practice, London: Longman.

·         The FA’s Vision 2008-12. (2007) A world-class organisation with a winning mentality, The F.A. Coaches Association Journal, Insight.

·         Verhey, F.R.J., Jolles, J., Ponds, R.W.H.M., Ronzendaal, N., Plugge, L.A., de Vet, R.C.W., Vreeling, F.W and van der Lugt, P.J.M. (1993) Diagnosing dementia: A comparison between a monodisciplinary and a multidisciplinary approach. Journal of Neuropsychiatry. 5(1): 78-85.

·         Vygotsky, L, 1978, Mind in Society: the Development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

·         Watkins, C., Carnell, E., Lodge, C., Whalley, C, 2001, Learning about learning.  London: Routledge.

·         Wood, L.A., Kroger, R.O. (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text, Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.