Cargas en los apoyos:

More recently, sport coaching has seen an emergent interest in the promotion and

implementation of meta-theory belonging to critical realism (Keegan, Spray, Harwood, & Lavallee, 2010; North, 2013a, 2013b, 2017; Plateau, Arcelus, McDermott, & Meyer, 2015; Readdy et al., 2016). Specifically, North (2013b) argued that although positivism and interpretivism provide us with ‘a rich seam of evidence to explore that can contribute to layered causal explanation’,

positivism ‘tends to offer a successionist view of causation based on regularities and a limited role for theory’, whereas ‘interpretivism is generally not concerned with causal explanation rather interpretive understanding or verstehen’ (p. 295). This relates to what critical realists would term a

‘flat ontology’, or the ‘epistemic fallacy’. In other words, positivism and interpretivism alone are viewed by some as being incapable of extending beyond knowledge according to our observations or experiences of events; what there is to know is collapsed into what can be known (Bhaskar, 1975). Epistemic relativism of this regard often collapses into judgmental relativism: the view that it is impossible to judge between competing claims (e.g., because, as in idealism, the social world is conceptualised as being constructed entirely via discourse, language, signs or texts, no account of it can be incorrect; Fleetwood, 2014). In contrast, critical realism would suggest that the world is real (realist ontology) and that entities can exist independently to us or our ability to identify them (Fleetwood, 2004). As such, critical realism provides a powerful position upon which we are able to embrace aspects of interpretivism or postmodernism (i.e., poststructuralism), without being ‘blown off course by idealism’ (Fleetwood, 2014, p. 186). Importantly, the view that I take of (sophisticated, well developed) interpretivist work and critical realist work is more closely aligned than that of some critical realists. As discussed at greater length in section 4.3 of this thesis, rather than engaging in wholesale, simplistic critique and counter posing of interpretivism and critical realism, I (alike others) believe that despite subtle differences, interpretivism and critical realism have much in common and can work together to address significant research problems (Hay, 2011).

Ontology, according to a critical realist perspective, is viewed as being layered, stratified, or as having depth; real entities and powers interact to produce events at the level of the actual, and we experience (the effects of) these events at the level of the empirical (North, 2013a). Real entities can exist as ‘things’ in many forms. For example, entities can be materially real which (may) exist independently to an agent who identifies them (e.g., oceans), ideally real (e.g., discourse, language, texts, beliefs, meanings), artefactually real (e.g., computers or technologies), or socially real (e.g., organisations or social structures)4_{. Anything which is real has ‘causal efficacy or makes a}

difference’ (Fleetwood, 2014, p. 204). The fundamental purpose of critical realism, then, is to aim

4 _{Importantly, Elder-Vass (2007a) argues, and I agree with the position that, social entities can}

indeed be materially real. Social structures, for example, are made up of humans which are materially real (have a material base), and hence social structures are themselves materially

to understand the causal mechanisms (e.g., emergently related entities) which interact to produce events. Because we can only know these mechanisms through their effects, and given we are not able to ‘step outside’ of our knowledge (reality is understood through discourse), attempts to identify mechanisms within critical realism must always be recognised as fallible (Fleetwood, 2014).

Among early coaching work which explicitly claimed to be underpinned by the philosophy of critical realism, Keegan et al. (2010) conducted an investigation of coach, parent and peer influences on motivation in athletes. Specifically, semi-structured focus groups were conducted with seventy-nine athletes to understand their perceptions of behaviours that could be used by coaches, parents and peers to (positively and negatively) influence motivation. Criticising previous work which had deductively applied motivational models to research studies, Keegan et al. (2010) asserted that work should instead investigate the motivational climate without giving preference to any specific theory (especially prior to commencement of data collection) and remain open minded. As such, the authors first engaged in an inductive content analysis before comparing themes to previous theory. Coaches, parents and peers were reported as being capable of influencing athlete motivation by using a range of (similar or different) behaviours. For example, it was suggested that through using feedback or evaluative communication, coaches, parents and peers could all

positively or negatively influence the motivation of athletes. Meanwhile, coaches and parents’ use of leadership behaviours/styles, emotional and affective responses/styles and pre-performance motivating behaviours were found to play a role in invariably influencing athlete motivation.

Individual themes were also identified for the ways in which coaches, parents and peers differed in terms of the behaviours that they could employ to shape athlete motivation. Here, coaches were found to be unique (when compared to parents and peers) in that their instruction and pedagogic considerations were reported to influence motivation. Meanwhile, parents’ support, facilitation and involvement (e.g., in instructing athletes or facilitating independent practice to coaching sessions) were perceived by athletes to influence their motivation. Lastly, for peers, relationships, social interaction, collaboration, altruistic behaviours and competition were reported

as being capable of influencing athlete motivation. Despite providing a comprehensive overview of behaviours employed by coaches and other stakeholders (i.e., parents and peers) which could influence athlete motivation, this study often failed to account for the means through which (i.e.,

how, why and under which circumstances) specific behaviours influenced motivation (positively or

negatively). Even when making reference to previous theory, Keegan et al. (2010) mainly failed to account for the mechanisms through which behaviours influenced motivation. Instead, previous studies were only introduced to confirm whether the findings conformed with or were positioned in contrast to the respondent’s suggestions. Crucially then, this study appears to bypass a cornerstone of critical realism – the central focus on generating causal explanation of emergent phenomena (Bhaskar, 1975). Indeed, the only reference to critical realism in the paper is made to caution against using a single paradigm or theory to guide the examination of the motivational climate. Without deeper causal explanation, we are left with the impression that behaviours can be

uncritically employed by practitioners which will then inevitably influence the outcomes of others (i.e., athletes) in relatively straightforward means.

North (2017) later provided the most detailed account of how critical realism might be applied in the field of sport coaching to date. Specifically, his work advocated the use (and further refinement) of a model or ‘sport coaching ontology’, which was claimed to be capable of

supporting interdisciplinary thinking and research. The model is named the embedded, relational and emergent (ERE) model and is based on the view that sport coaching research should be centred on a biopsychosocial ontology. Specifically, the model positions sport coaching as embedded (i.e., because it consists of a depth ontology situated in space and time), relational and emergent (i.e., because it cannot be understood through reduction to the sum of its parts; interactions between entities – which can change over time – must be sought to understand the ‘whole’; North, 2017). Further, the ERE model suggests that all sport coaching contexts are: a) embedded (in space, time, physical, psychological, social and cultural orders), b) goal-oriented (directed and informed by goals), c) draw upon and are constrained or enabled by resources (e.g., sociocultural, institutional, intrapersonal and individual factors), d) associated with reasoning, reflecting and strategising

(coaches make decisions, initiate strategies and reflect on these), and e) imbued with actions and outcomes (i.e., coaches behave in certain ways which has an implication on outcomes).

North (2017) advocated that researchers consider how the actions and outcomes of stakeholders are accounted for in light of specific contextual goal-orientations and

stakeholder/environmental resources, reasoning, reflecting and strategising. Furthermore, a four- level typology of coaching was presented, whereby sociocultural, institutional, interpersonal, and individual layers must be acknowledged. The sociocultural layer represents the impact of national sporting agencies or government (wider social and cultural forces). Institutional layers understand the influence of national governing bodies, clubs, schools or more local governing bodies of particular sports/activities. More immediate social and psychological components are encapsulated within the interpersonal layer (i.e., coach-athlete relationships and team dynamics), and the

individual layer identifies with physical, biological and psychological factors at the level of the coach or athlete (North, 2017). Importantly, these layers are viewed as causally interacting with one another to emergently produce entities or events of sport coaching.

In using this model to research coach effectiveness, North (2017) conducted an

ethnographic case study within a kayak slalom performance development context, which included interviews and participant observations with/of a range of stakeholders (e.g., coaches, athletes, managers, programme leads and parents) and in a range of settings (e.g., sessions, development reviews, competition, meetings). In particular, components of the ERE model were utilised to identify the goals of coaches and stakeholders, and to provide examples of practices and events which occurred, before breaking these down to investigate their causal underpinnings. The coaching goals were reported to be negotiated, developed and influenced at four levels: sociocultural, institutional, interpersonal and individual. For example, Sport England at a sociocultural level had provided funding and asked governing bodies to produce a pathway for performers to move from a ‘beginner’ stage through to high performance. At an institutional level, the Kenningham Canoeing Performance Training Academy had targets to produce performers who were capable of winning medals at the 2020 Olympic Games. In line with these more macro- or

meso-level goals, the head coach, in conjunction with his line manager, the performers and their parents, also established detailed yearly and seasonal targets. Building upon these yearly or seasonal goals, 6-weekly plans were set, which then informed the goals at a sessional level – these goals were adaptable and dependent upon given resources (e.g., weather, availability). Yearly and seasonal goals for the performers concerned moving up the divisional tiers of the kayak slalom league structure, while 6-weekly goals were generally more oriented around physical,

psychological, technical, tactical, and social or lifestyle development factors. The head coach himself also held goals (i.e., to establish and maintain a successful development programme) reflecting his position within the organisation, as well as his income and the security of his position. However, these goals of the coach were stated to be largely implicit and thus only identifiable through actions, outcomes, strategies and resources (North, 2017).

Further exploring the application of the model, the research then provided an account of the actions of stakeholders within the context. For example, describing one of the training sessions, the research highlighted the coach’s session design (i.e., activities used to work on a water feature and develop technique). Behaviours of the coach derived through observation were also

illuminated. For example, silence, interspersed with encouragement and technical feedback was used to allow athletes to problem solve and navigate the course which had been set. Whistles were also implemented by the coach to denote praise, given the conditions of the water rushing through the course made it difficult for verbal praise to be heard. Questioning toward the end of the session was also utilised before providing further feedback to the canoeists. In light of the aforementioned goal-orientations and actions within the context, strategies of the coach were then explored (as proximal causes). As an example, one of the strategies employed by the coach when managing behaviour was to scold (i.e., remonstrate with or rebuke) to make the individual or group aware of their behaviour and the implications of this, but then to nest this within a wider strategy of trust and humour to circumvent too much negativity.

Specific resources at the four levels (sociocultural, institutional, interpersonal and individual) were then explored to further support and explain some of the mechanisms being

described and how they were enabled or constrained. For instance, at a sociocultural level it was highlighted that the programme would not have existed without the societal and political value of winning medals, or funding from the governing body. Further, the influence of ‘popular science’ (e.g., Dweck, 2006; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993) was illustrated as having a

significant influence on the development of the programme. At an institutional level, the facilities, wider performance development programmes, programme managers, coaches and communities of practice were all stated to inform delivery. Cultural resources were also developed whereby commonly agreed and shared values were established (i.e., commitment, ownership, responsibility and personal excellence) in attempt to influence the strategies employed. Among other resources at the institutional level, the programme was tied in with a well-regarded local high school, which provided initial opportunities to identify talent. Moreover, the coach was able to draw upon and consult other coaches as well as coach development programmes.

Resources at an individual level focused upon the biographies of the coach and the main athletes studied. Interviews with the head coach suggested that his limited parental support and access to finances when he was younger had encouraged him to take responsibility and drive his own development. He was a kayak slalom performer himself, a business graduate, and was open to new learning or the implementation of research. The coach’s strategy of humour was stated to have been developed organically, although this may have been influenced by previous experiences of humour with his father. The two athletes were both stated to be small in stature, intelligent, kind natured and had a sense of adventure or fun. One of the athletes, ‘Eric’, was very talkative, analytical and open to learning. Another athlete, ‘Mag’, was stated to be more ‘happy go lucky’, relaxed, forgetful, confident (but not arrogant), humorous, polite and daring. Finally, at an

interpersonal level, the culture, relationships and practices that emerged were highlighted as being related to the strategies of the coach. In particular, these factors gave stakeholders an understanding and sense of hierarchy, while they maintained close and personal relationships. This also coincided with the overall philosophy (to focus on the development of psychological skills in athletes).

Shared understandings of the development and maintenance of such resources were positioned as a key element to the success of the programme and its coaching (North, 2017).

North (2017) argued that the strength of his work was that it allowed the research context to ‘speak for itself’, providing a resonant picture for coaching practitioners, and also permitting a platform for extension through further engagement with theoretical work. The ethnography valuably highlights a detailed picture of the coaching context studied, and elements (or entities) which emergently interacted to explain the observed events. However, the account presents findings relating to sections of the model in isolation, and, in doing so, paints a somewhat fragmented picture of the coaching context. Some connections between entities were discussed, however, what remains difficult to grasp is an appreciation of where the entities and their related mechanisms fitted together to explain the events which had taken place. Further, although a brief attempt to explain the use of humour was made, drawing upon the work of Lars Tore Ronglan and Kenneth Aggerholm (e.g., Aggerholm & Ronglan, 2012), very little reference to (other) theory was made to explain the entities or mechanisms present. Perhaps this was not the aim of the study, as North (2017) himself acknowledged the work to provide a platform for the context to ‘speak for itself’, and that it served as a tool for future coaching research from a critical realist perspective to pay greater attention to the integration of theory. While data nor theory should master drive research in a critical realist project, theory is nonetheless a crucial and indispensable element in providing more sophisticated and resonant explanation to identify causal mechanisms (Kempster & Parry, 2011). As such, further work is required here to appraise and explain the influence of coaching practice within a critical realist paradigm. Specifically, research could consider the means through which intensive methodologies (such as those employed in the study described above) could be used to combine data and theory in order to provide causal explanations of influence in- situ.

Alongside the work of North, and picking up on an earlier introduced theory of

orchestration (see section 2.3), the paradigm of critical realism has also been used to investigate the orchestrative practices of athletes. Only Raabe et al. (2017) have explicitly focused on the extent to

which pathos also exists as a feature in the lives of athletes and how athletes, too, engage in acts of orchestration. Usefully generating fresh perspectives on the sources of pathos experienced by athletes using semi-structured interviews, this study reported that instead of simply managing ambiguity, coaches can also create ambiguity for athletes. Here, it was suggested that coaches control many decisions relating to athletes’ participation in sport, may have conflicting beliefs and opinions to athletes (i.e., about how to best prepare for competitions), and that coaches often fail to appropriately communicate enough information (e.g., feedback or communication of team line-ups) to athletes. In addition, other sources of ambiguity for athletes arose from conflicting beliefs with teammates, novelties presented by collegiate athletics (e.g., higher performance standards) and the significance of injuries.

Raabe et al. (2017) also valuably unearthed strategies which were employed by athletes to orchestrate the pathos that they faced. Specifically, athletes reported communicating with coaches (e.g., to attempt to gain additional control, gather more feedback or reduce contradictory beliefs), self-orchestration (e.g., maintaining a positive attitude and regulating emotions to cope with challenges), and the importance of relationship building (i.e., with coaches, support staff, teammates and family) as key strategies to orchestrate the pathos which they faced. Although providing an important contribution to the literature by depicting the extent to which pathos was evident for athletes and strategies used by athletes to orchestrate, this study lacked a critical exploration of how and why athletes orchestrated in relation to specific situations and (inter)actions with others in-situ. Instead, broad themes of what athletes (thought they) did when they

orchestrated were presented. In order to further rigour and understanding in this area, more nuanced and detailed understandings of what, how and why athletes orchestrate in relation to specific

situated acts of others (e.g. coaches) could be developed. Researching the relational (orchestrated) acts of coaches and athletes in this way would help to develop a clearer picture of the impact of orchestration (i.e., what was the outcome of orchestrated acts) and thus its (non)influence.

Critical realism, then, provides a novel paradigmatic position through which sport coaching research can be informed. To date, the application of this paradigm in coaching work is very much

in its infancy. Indeed, the work of North (2017) and Raabe et al. (2017) has provided an important contribution and starting point, upon which further work can build. Specifically, the critical realist research approach appears to be well positioned to generate causal explanatory theory, through identifying entities, emergent mechanisms and how they interact to produce events. This provides a fresh perspective of causality and explanation, which, it is argued other paradigms alone (although providing valuable contributions themselves) are incapable of achieving (Fleetwood, 2014). Sceptics have critiqued Bhaskar’s ontological position on the basis that it defines ontology ‘as both a fallible interpretation of reality and as a definitive definition of reality beyond our knowledge claims’ (Cruickshank, 2004, p. 567). However, this account fails to acknowledge an important distinction in critical realism: firstly, what is meant by reality, and, secondly, that reality can but

does not always exist independently of our identification of it (Fleetwood, 2014). Furthermore, it

fails to distinguish between ontological realism and epistemic relativism; critical realism attempts to generate causal theory of phenomena (reality), while recognising that theory of this reality is inherently fallible (Ronkainen & Withshire, 2019). Cruickshank’s (2004) critique also asserted that:

‘if one accepted that social reality was to be defined in terms of individuals and shared meanings then one would need to adopt an hermeneutic approach to social science, rather than arguing for a causal account of structures acting upon individuals’ (p. 575). However, this statement is countered by critical realists who have implied that social reality (e.g., social structure) is (partly) an emergent property of the interactions between

individuals which, in turn, can (causally) influence action by shaping dispositions/beliefs alongside conscious reflexivity of the agent (Elder-Vass, 2010a). As such, agents and