Understanding the Change Process: Valuing What it is That Coaches Do

Abstract

In her article regarding change in the coaching profession, Tania Cassidy argues for the application of Giddens’ Structuration theory and specifically the concepts of “knowledgeability,” “practical consciousness,” and “slippage.” She suggests that coaches incorporate time-honored practices and day-to-day conventions into their coaching that they may have learned or seen from a mentor. Simply put, she is suggesting that we examine these day-to-day routines and the regimes of coaches to better understand change, and specifically the lack of change within the coaching profession. THE CHANGE PROCESS AND FEMALE COACHES As I was reading Cassidy’s argument, I was reminded of the experiences of women coaches and how her argument applies to their experiences. This is likely because Cassidy’s examples are from a paper which I reviewed by Leanne Norman [1], and the experiences of women coaches has been my primary research focus for the last several years. Although her argument applying Giddens’ framework is not specific to women coaches, I find it interesting that both examples she provides are related to women. I wonder if her inclusion of these examples is intentional and that Cassidy is suggesting Giddens’ framework should specifically be used to examine the lack of change related to women coaches, or if she is suggesting this framework should be applied more broadly to the coaching profession. When focusing specifically on women coaches, research has clearly documented how the patriarchal and homophobic nature of sport has impacted women coaches’ experiences in sport, leading some women to leave the coaching profession [2-4]. Norman’s paper is just one example that documents the lack of opportunities for women in coaching, and research supports the conclusion that this trend is occurring worldwide [5-6]. Women coaches need to work twice as hard as any male coach to establish credibility and respect [1], and many feel isolated and describe an atmosphere of gender discrimination and the centrality of male coaches [2]. In general, women coaches receive fewer resources, have lower salaries, more responsibilities, less administrative support, and older facilities [2]. These findings clearly point to the day-to-day routines and regimes that Cassidy is arguing we examine. Discussing some of those day-to-day routines and regimens in athletics more closely, the “good old boys” network constrains women coaches and impacts the hiring of coaches. The “good old boys” network has been demonstrated by findings supporting the notion of homologous reproduction or the tendency in which the “dominant group systematically