Expertise in coaching interceptive sports: A grounded theory model

Abstract

The task of explaining the intricate and often abstract actions that define expert coaching practice has proven problematic for researchers and coaching practitioners alike. This dilemma was highlighted more than a decade ago by Cassidy, Jones and Potrac (2004) who had suggested that two of the most frequently employed nouns to elaborate on expert coaching practice: ‘style’ and ‘methods’, are applied incorrectly. More recently, in an extensive review of research that has examined coaching practice Lyle and Cushion (2010) ‘dishearteningly’ concede that such endeavours have failed to deliver universally accepted clarity about effective sports coaching. Chi (2006) attributes much of this uncertainty to research that has accepted an incomplete locus of expertise. On the basis of such uncertainty, this study was undertaken with the intent of identifying, determining and understanding the actions that separate effective coaches from a wider population of coaching practitioners. Using Grounded Theory as a methodological framework, six coaching practitioners from the interceptive sports of Football (Soccer), Rugby League and Rugby Union were each subjected to two semi-structured interviews: an initial interview and a follow up interview to enable research participants to peruse, change or add information to their responses and my summation of their responses. Mindful of Nash and Collins’ (2006) suggestion that some coaching practitioners toil when required to verbalise their actions, the data gathered from these interviews was analysed according to Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) conditional matrix. Conditional Matrix espoused by Strauss and Corbin was identified and engaged in this research for its capacity to extract implicit meanings and decipher the abstract knowledge structures that often frame a coaching practitioner’s account of their daily practices. As a consequence of this research process, twelve categories of coaching actions began to emerge from the responses offered by participants to the research questions. These twelve categories have been refined to establish four distinct pattern of behaviour that each member of the research group subliminally uses to facilitate a decision making process (as opposed to a decision which is often proposed in the review of literature). These four patterns of behaviour have culminated in the proposal of two grounded theory models: ‘The Stability / Instability Exchange Model’ and the ‘Emergent Decision Making Model’ as possible indicators of expertise in interceptive sports coaching. The first of these two models: ‘The Stability / Instability Exchange Model’, recommends how expert coaching practitioners design personal analogies and formulate conceptualisations to identify and focus on the most pertinent environmental information streams. The Emergent Decision Making Model’ proposes how expert coaching practitioners use the personal analogies in conjunction with specific conceptualisation to enable attacking and defensive decisions to emerge from the field of play. The significance of this research is two-fold. Firstly at an educational level, both the “Stability / Instability Exchange Model’ and the ‘Emergent Decision Making Model’ rely inherently on a coaching practitioner’s ability to self-organise environmental information with existing knowledge structures. As such formal coaching education programs may need to consider introducing or dedicating more time to the design and application of dynamic knowledge processes. Finally at an academic level, in accordance with the recommendations of Chi (2006) and Ericsson and Smith (1991) it would appear that both the ‘Stability / Instability Exchange Model’ and the ‘Emergent Decision Making Model’ could possible stand as touchstones for a greater examination of expertise in interceptive sports coaching in a laboratory setting.