It is perhaps surprising that, to now, this thesis has highlighted that researchers, coaching practitioners, and other stakeholders lack evidence-based knowledge to work with relating to what is arguably the raison d'être of our discipline. That is to say, we currently lack sufficiently detailed, complex empirical and theoretical understanding of how, when, why, and under which
circumstances our behaviours or actions as coaches influence (or do not influence) others. Both the
broad literature review (Chapter 2) and more focused systematic review (Chapter 3) have together highlighted that the largest proportion of studies investigating the influence of coaching practice on athletes have been underpinned by positivist logic. These studies have typically been approached using cross-sectional or correlational research designs and have highlighted relationships between coaching practice and athlete ‘outcomes’ or ‘outputs’ in a simplistic fashion. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 provide a crude depiction of much of the literature in this area to date, and a potential way for research to address remaining questions, respectively.
Figure 1.2 A simplified heuristic of previous literature focusing on the influence of the coach
Figure 1.3 Toward a more sophisticated understanding of coach influence
Figure 1.2 portrays the reductionist perspective taken by many studies, whereby the coach (C) is viewed as a lone agent who delivers behaviours in isolation to and has a direct influence on
athletes. In contrast, Figure 1.3 suggests that research could consider coach influence as a relational endeavour, whereby both coach (C) and athlete (A) (inter)action can shape and be shaped by multiple interactions with others.
Although the paradigms of interpretivism, poststructuralism and critical realism have provided us with more nuanced understandings of the influence of coaching practice,
heading in this more sophisticated direction, research has typically been designed to focus on the coach, or to generate implications for coaches. Perhaps some of the difficulty or
indeterminacy facing such studies in identifying how coaching practice has (or has not) influenced athletes can be attributed to the fact that performance is a multiply determined act. As Lyle and Cushion (2017) identify:
‘Performance increments and outcomes are dependent on many factors, and coaches and athletes alike acknowledge that they are often subject to factors outside of their control (despite the fact that some sports are perhaps more dependent on repeatable techniques and physical capacity than others). Another way to express this is to
C
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
SOCIAL STRUCTURErecognise that sport coaching has no ‘theory’ that directly predicts the performance effect of coaching (expectancy modelling)’ (p. 33).
Indeed, part of the multiply determined nature of influence can be explained by the agency that athletes retain to consciously reflect and shape their own actions (which has received little consideration to date).
Reinforcing points made through the review of literature in Chapter 2, this chapter’s systematic review also points to gaps evident in the literature base surrounding the influence of coaching practice. Specifically, there is a dearth of work which attempts to identify the mechanisms through which coaching practice influences others (e.g., athletes) or not. Here, recognition of what social structure is (i.e., its ontology) and how coaches/athletes’ actions can both shape and be shaped by social structure alongside their capacity for agency is sparse. Indeed, ambiguity in the use of the term social structure has long been recognised as problematic (Hays, 1994). Further, perhaps relatedly, there is a tendency for research to focus on the what of influence (i.e., what elements of coaching practice influence), as opposed to the how, when, why, or under which
circumstances coaching practice influences (or not) others. Even more sophisticated research
(highlighted in section 2.3) which has attempted to move beyond the what has maintained a strong focus on the implications of influence for coach-athlete relationship maintenance or breakdown, and rarely focused on the influence of coaching practice on broader actions or behaviours (e.g., the role performance of others).
Many accounts also disregard the temporal nature of influence or the perspective of multiple stakeholders (i.e., on the same event). Few studies have incorporated the (qualitative in- depth) relational perspective of the athlete or considered how both coaches and athletes contribute to (co-produce) the complex process of influence. The limited number of studies which have attempted to understand athletes’ roles in managing the complexities of coaching (e.g., Purdy, et al., 2009; Purdy et al., 2008; Purdy & Jones, 2011) have provided an important line of inquiry to support the education and development of both coaches and athletes, as well as other stakeholders of coaching. Although these studies acknowledge the role of structural influences and agency, again, few have sought to explicitly understand how it is possible that both structural influences
(i.e., habitus) and agential reflexivity together may co-determine the actions of athletes. More work is required here which recognises temporally emergent, face-to-face (inter)actions in everyday practice. Building upon limited research (e.g., Cushion & Jones, 2006), which recognises the capacity of athletes to simultaneously conform with and resist coaching practice, greater attention is needed to understand how and why athletes simultaneously conform with or resist attempts to influence made by multiple coaches.Indeed, very little work has considered examples of coaching practice which have been noninfluential. Specifically, accounts of this nature relating to the manifestation and enactment of athlete performance are scant.
The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to more closely examine how stakeholders (e.g., athletes) themselves receive, interpret, and are influenced by coaching practice (or not).
Specifically, the work seeks an understanding of coaches’ engagement in practice, and how, when,
why and under which circumstances such practice influences (or does not influence) others (e.g.,
athletes), inclusive of what the explanatory mechanism behind this process may be. As will be discussed at greater length in Chapter 4, orchestration (Jones & Wallace, 2005, 2006) provides a valuable lens to understand coaches’ and athletes’ attempts to influence by managing pathos (i.e., aiming to close the distance between goals set and the actual ability to achieve these goals in practice). However, orchestration alone cannot explain the mechanisms through which attempts to influence the (normative) behaviour of others are indeed influential or not. Here, Elder-Vass’ (2007, 2012a, 2012a) theories of emergentism, norm circles and the causal power of social structures, when fused with the orchestration metaphor, hold strong potential to address this very question, and therefore, to understand the (non)influence of coach interaction. Importantly, these positions permit an understanding of how athletes’ (inter)actions are causally influenced by social structure and conscious reflexivity. As Elder-Vass (2007b) posited:
most of our actions are co-determined by both our habitus and our reflexive deliberations, and that despite the apparently conflicting implications of these two perspectives for our sense of our ability to choose our actions, they in fact represent two complementary moments of one and the same process (p. 335).
Helping coaches (and other stakeholders) to appreciate the complexity associated with the (non)influence of their (inter)actions holds strong potential to develop sociological literacy (Lemert, 1997). For instance, drawing upon this analysis, coaches, coach educators, spectators (e.g., parents) and athletes may be able to more closely appreciate the often-subtle influence had by coaches (alongside other entities) in shaping the behaviours or responses of athletes, and the mechanisms through which this occurs. Portraying the influence of coaching in this way – less romantically; more authentically – is envisioned to help stakeholders of coaching to more realistically appreciate the coach’s role in contributing to the actions (i.e., performance) of those within their relational networks (Collinson et al., 2018). In the following section, I introduce the specific philosophical (critical realist) position, which is complementary with this theory, before introducing the combined theoretical framework in greater detail.