in the Sport of Rowing by
Maria Veronica Planella M.A., University of Victoria, 2003
Canadian National Coaching Certification Level 4, National Coaching Institute, 1997 Coaching Diploma, York University, 1994
B. Ed., Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, 1987 B. A., Honours, Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, 1986
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in the School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education
ã Maria Veronica Planella, 2020 University of Victoria
All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.
We acknowledge with respect the Lekwungen peoples on whose traditional territory the university stands and the Songhees, Esquimalt and WSÁNEĆ
Reflections from the Lake:
An Account of Olympic-Level Coaching Expertise in the Sport of Rowing
by
Maria Veronica Planella M.A., University of Victoria, 2003
Canadian National Coaching Certification Level 4, National Coaching Institute, 1997 Coaching Diploma, York University, 1994
B. Ed., Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, 1987 B. A., Honours, Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, 1986
Supervisory Committee
Dr. Geraldine van Gyn. School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education Supervisor
Dr. Timothy Hopper. School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education Departmental Member
Dr. Brad Temple. School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education Departmental Member
Dr. Frederick Grouzet. Department of Psychology Outside Member
The dissertation is comprised of two qualitative, exploratory studies with an overarching research goal to deepen understanding of Olympic level sport coaching expertise through the development of an in-depth case study. These studies take a constructivist view that emphasizes the active construction of knowledge with social boundaries in which meaning is constructed by the reasoning of the individuals who experience it (Rockmore, 2011). In this case, the individuals include an Olympic rowing coach and 18 of his athletes, from a particular period of his coaching career. With an emphasis on the context of Olympic level rowing, this dissertation followed ethnographic traditions in developing a case study of an Olympic level rowing coach within his coaching community in Canada during three Olympic quadrennials (from 2001 to 2012). Informed by the elements of the integrated definition of expert and effective coaching (Côté & Gilbert, 2009), the two distinct but interconnected studies in this dissertation contributed to a detailed examination of the Olympic coach and his philosophy, principles, knowledge and coaching practices and the impact of these elements on athlete outcomes within the specific context of Olympic level rowing. Outcomes from the two studies are indicative of the utility of the knowledge framework and the integrated definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise (Côté & Gilbert, 2009) to guide this study of expert coaching. The extensiveness of this research goes beyond the question of which criteria determine whether a coach is identified as an expert, to reveal the expert's coaching philosophy, his unique practices, and methods interwoven with clear linguistic and behavioural intentionality. The Olympic coach directed all of his efforts at striving for continued expertise for himself and his athletes. Mutuality of trust and respect was the basis of the athlete-coach effective and valued
findings identified that this productive relationship was supported by the integration of the Olympic coach’s professional, intrapersonal and interpersonal knowledge with a superior contextual understanding. In particular, the interpersonal knowledge of the Olympic coach was identified as essential to the commitment of the participant athletes to his training program and the shared goal of Olympic success. The Olympic coach’s expert practice was facilitated by his deliberate presence in the training venue, his transformative leadership and adaptive expertise, a form of expertise that provides clarity on specific features of the Olympic coach’s practice and accounts for his innovations in the sport of rowing. These explanatory constructs of deliberate presence, transformative leadership and adaptive expertise emerged from both studies. The findings also provide perspective on the lasting impact of his coaching on his athletes and the sport of rowing.
Keywords: Coaching expertise, coaching knowledge, deliberate presence, adaptive expertise, transformational leadership, athletes’ outcomes, blended motivational climate.
Supervisory Committee ...ii Abstract ... iii Table of Contents ... v List of Tables ... ix List of Figures ... x Acknowledgments ... xi Dedication ...xiii
Chapter One – Introduction and Context ... 1
Introduction ... 1
The Olympic-Level Rowing Coach ... 1
Research Focus and Design ... 5
Challenges in coaching expertise research. ... 5
Research Questions Accompanying Two Lines of Inquiry ... 8
Study one research questions. ... 10
Study two research questions. ... 10
Overview of Research Methods ... 11
Sources of data in the study. ... 11
Researcher as instrument. ... 13
General limitations of the two studies... 16
Delimitations. ... 19
Ethical considerations. ... 23
Steering Towards and Through this Research: The Researcher’s Voice ... 24
Theoretical Perspective. ... 29
Dissertation Outline ... 30
Chapter Two ... 32
Abstract ... 33
Introduction ... 35
The Integrated Definition of Effective and Expert Coaching: Creating a Third Space.... 38
Issues in the study of expert coaching. ... 42
Models of expertise. ... 46
Documenting expert coaching: Why use a case study? ... 48
Development of expert coaches... 49
Creating the case study of an exceptional high-performance coach. ... 50
Purpose of Study ... 51
Guiding questions for study one. ... 51
Methods ... 52
Research Design ... 52
Data Generation ... 53
Interviews. ... 54
Participant observation. ... 64
Researcher field notes. ... 66
Documentation of coaching records. ... 66
Data Analysis... 67
Thematic analysis. ... 68
Methodological validity. ... 69
Findings ... 69
The Olympic Coach’s Knowledge: The IDCEE Components ... 73
Active and persistent observation, deliberation, and learning. ... 74
Contemplating the parts and integrating the whole: engaging creatively in response. ... 86
Is it going to help us to win? Continuous striving to attain a shared goal. ... 106
Deliberate presence. ... 121
Links Between the Olympic Coach’s Knowledge and Nash Criteria as an Operational Tool to Identify Expert Coaching ... 128
Discussion ... 131
Successful High-Performance Coaching: The Olympic Coach’s Practice ... 132
Frame one: Commitment to deep and continuous learning. ... 134
Frame two: The perceptual advantage of the expert coach. ... 143
Frame three: Applying knowledge to make decisions: Driving towards excellence. ... 149
Frame four: Expert knowledge in action: Athlete outcomes. ... 155
Frame five: The poet-coach as an adaptive expert. ... 162
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research ... 166
Trustworthiness of this Study ... 169
Chapter Three... 173
Abstract ... 174
Introduction ... 176
The High-Performance Athlete and Motivational Climate at the Olympic Level... 182
Situating the case: The Olympic-level rowing training environment. ... 189
Guiding Questions for Study Two ... 191
Methods ... 192 Research Design ... 193 Participants ... 195 Data Collection ... 201 Semi-structured Interviews. ... 202 Visual-elicitation. ... 203
Books by Olympic level rowers. ... 207
Public domain documentation. ... 208
Olympic coach coaching philosophy video. ... 210
Data Analysis... 210
The Effectiveness of the Interview Setting ... 216
Accountability, Commitment, and Learning to be Autonomous: Love, Hate, and Everything in Between ... 221
Influences from the program. ... 221
The influence of the Olympic coach: The enigma. ... 235
Influences from the self: The Athlete. ... 286
The influences from the crew: A peer motivational climate. ... 304
Discussion ... 315
Olympic Level Motivational Climate: A Blended Proposition ... 321
Olympic-Level Autonomy-Encouraged Training Environment and the Collective Drive to Succeed: A Three Phase Process... 336
Phase 1. Socialization: Offering the possibility, establishing the program values and standards and promoting belief in the program and one’s competence. ... 338
Phase 2: Growth in belief: Individual and group belief in competency to achieve the shared goal. ... 343
Phase 3: The collective: The development of a strong and purposeful group ego and crew autonomy. ... 345
Peer Influences on Motivational Climate ... 357
Influences from Self on Motivational Climate ... 358
The 4Cs as a Function of the Three Phase Blended Motivational Climate for Training 362 Expert Coaching Knowledge Integration and Athlete Outcomes of the 4Cs ... 377
Conclusions ... 381
Research Limitations ... 385
Contributions to the Research Literature on High Performance Athletes. ... 388
Contribution to Coaching Education ... 389
Chapter Four ... 391
General Dissertation Discussion of the Two Studies: The Expert Coach ... 392
Trust and Respect: A Dynamic Mutual Influence ... 393
The Case of an Olympic Rowing Coach: Expert Ways of Doing, Knowing, and Being a Coach. ... 406
Final Thoughts: The possibility of a socio-cultural interpretation of the Olympic coach’s expert practice? ... 412
References ... 432
Appendixes ... 522
Appendix A: Relevant Literature Review Framing an Account of Olympic-Level Coaching Expertise in the Sport of Rowing ... 523
Appendix B: Study One Interview Guide ... 525
Appendix C: Ethics Approval (Ethics Protocol 16-091) issued by the University of Victoria ... 531
Appendix E: Consent Form Athletes ... 539
Appendix F: Consent Form President PacificSport Victoria ... 546
Appendix G: Study One Public Domain Documentation... 549
Appendix H: Study Two Electronic Contact Communication ... 553
Appendix I: Study Two Electronic Follow up Communication ... 554
Appendix J: Study Two Public Domain Video Documentation List ... 555
Appendix K: Study Two Interview Guide ... 558
Appendix L: Olympic Coach Selected Poems ... 563
List of Tables
Table 1. Olympic Coach's Coaching Record of Podium Performances in Major Events ... 3
Table 2. Researcher's Experience in Context-Focused, Data Sources and Purposes ... 15
Table 3. Number of Public Domain with *Olympic coach* ... 57
Table 4. Videos of Specific Olympic-Level Coaching Practice ... 59
Table 5. Olympic Coach's own Documentation ... 67
Table 6. Links Between Nash Criteria and Olympic Coach's Knowledge ... 130
Table 7. Description of Participant Athletes’ Experiences in the OLTE ... 199
Table 8. Participant Athletes’ Demographics and Pseudonyms ... 201
Table 9. Number of Public Domain from Different Search Engines ... 208
Table 10. Number of Public Domain with Criteria Last Retrieved June 26, 2019 ... 209
Table 11. Salient Features of Mastery and Performance Motivational Climates Present in the OLTE ... 324
Table 12. Olympic Coach Transformative Leadership: Substantiated by Participant Athletes ... 399 Table 13. Olympic coach's Adaptive Expertise: Substantiated by Participant Athletes . 402
Figure 1. Row at dawn. Winter of 2007, Elk lake, Victoria, B. C. (Photo courtesy Kevin
Light) ... 27
Figure 2. Comparison of the IDCEE with the Nash criteria ... 44
Figure 3. Interview sequence ... 56
Figure 4. Active and persistent observations, deliberation and learning ... 75
Figure 5. Contemplating the parts and integrating the whole: Engaging creatively in response ... 87
Figure 6. Is it going to help us win? Continuous striving for shared goal ... 107
Figure 7. Deliberate presence ... 122
Figure 8. Participant athletes successful and unsuccessful experiences ... 197
Figure 9. Interview setting ... 206
Figure 10. Example of within cases analysis with initial notes and mind mapping ... 212
Figure 11. Accountability, commitment, and learning to be autonomous: Love, hate and everything in between... 220
Figure 12. Influences from the program ... 222
Figure 13. Influences from the coach ... 237
Figure 14. Influences from the self: The athlete ... 287
Figure 15. Influences from the crew ... 305
Figure 16. Representation of athlete's process through the three phases of the Olympic level autonomy-encouraging blended motivational training environment ... 356
Figure 17. Towards a shared goal through trust and respect ... 396
Figure 18. Mutual themes of trust and respect: Substantiating the Olympic coach's practice... 397
To the poet coach and the exceptional eighteen athletes who participated in this research, thank you! Bound in a meaningful shared experience, your profound interest in helping me to capture, understand and document how excellence grows and lasts within a person and your unwavering support throughout the research project gave a fundamental purpose that has become a driving force in my life. In particular, Kevin Light thank you for capturing, with your skilled photography, the essential spirit of the Olympic level rowing context unfolded at the Lake.
Most sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Geraldine van Gyn, for your loyalty and enduring support. Thanks for trusting in my points of view, giving space and time to cultivate them into a research that I am deeply passionate about. Thank you for guiding my thinking, the helpful and invested sessions supported by review of evidence, brought much clarity. Your feedback and writing skill were essential in developing this document into a better version of itself.
Dr. Brad Temple, thank you for your great interest in the topic, the visual medium and continued support throughout the project, especially when I was feeling isolated and lost. The numerous informal conversations, to the detailed comments in the many drafts of this dissertation, enlivened the research for me.
Dr. Tim Hopper, thank you for introducing me to new possibilities with your class of qualitative genres that opened new modes of inquiry that truly resonate with me. Thanks, also, for many of your very helpful comments and detailed attention to formatting.
essential comments on how to strategize completion. Thanks, too, for contributing to thought-provoking questions to the thesis defense conversation.
Dr. Wade Gilbert, thank you for your valuable line of scientific research that gave insightful structure to my work. Thanks, for your informed enthusiasm towards my efforts in advocating for coach and athletes’ expertise, and for providing beneficial comments to the final draft.
Thanks to the abundant number of individuals that directly or indirectly have supported me in my journey, a diverse community scattered along the continent, and across the ocean. In particularly to my Chilean and Canadian families big thank you. And thanks to many friends, in special Kristen Walsh, who introduced me to the
embodiment of noticing and self-compassion, and Sara Plumpton, who weaved words to helped me express the magic of coaching differently. Finally, Cody McEvay and Dylan Dalgas thank you for assisting in discussions of findings and special to John MacMillan President of 94 FORWARD, who works diligently supporting initiatives like mine, to capture and learn the immense knowledge and wisdom from coaches and athletes, I have a deep sense of gratitude.
This dissertation is dedicated to Mike Spracklen and his family, who shared his love and true dedication to the sport of rowing and coaching, and to the eighteen exceptional athletes that shared with me their lived experiences revealed in this dissertation. These special individuals have already written their Olympic history. However, from my perspective, history is alive and their permanent lessons have a
‘strong pulse’ that requires our recognition and attention to learn bring more meaning and purpose to the experiences of any striving individual.
Lastly, my work is also dedicated to my team: my husband Lorne Cowley, my sister Popi Planella, our three grandchildren Lexi, Rosemary and Lucas and my fuzzy running partner Dominga. Always with me is your love, courage, true sense of wonder and joy.
Chapter One – Introduction and Context Introduction
This dissertation is a qualitative, exploratory case study based on two interdependent studies with the overarching goal to deepen and broaden the understanding of sport coaching expertise. Following ethnographic traditions, this case study research centered on a unique case of an Olympic-level rowing coach within his coaching community in Canada during three
Olympic quadrennials (from 2001 to 2012). Informed by the elements of an integrated definition of coaching expertise proposed by Côté and Gilbert (2009) (hereafter: IDCEE), the two separate but interconnected studies allowed for a detailed examination of the individual (the coach’s knowledge), the impact of his practice (the athletes’ outcomes), and the contextual coaching characteristics (the domain specificity). These studies produced a rich description of the dimensions of a unique individual as an Olympic-level rowing coach, informed by his descriptions and explanations, and those of 18 of his athletes.
The Olympic-Level Rowing Coach
As the focus of this work is on the identification and understanding of coaching expertise, the choice of this particular Olympic-level rowing coach was determined, initially, by his
extensive history of success at the highest level of sport coaching, his length of time in the sport, and his nomination by coaching peers and athletes. He was subsequently vetted on all eight criteria reported in the review of literature, which, prior to Nash, Martindale, Collins, and Martindale’s (2012) publication, have been generally agreed upon and used to select expert coaches as research participants. This particular Olympic-level rowing coach far exceeds traditional standards of expertise in the coaching domain and in coaching expertise research.
These standards include:
1) a minimum of ten years of coaching experience, 2) athletes’ or teams’ performance outcomes, 3) accredited coaching level,
4) peer (and/or field) recognition,
5) leadership roles in coach training and education, 6) continual development of high-level performers, 7) coaching competition level, and
8) coaching representative level athletes.
As well, the essential criteria of availability, willingness to participate, and capability to engage in interviews and produce meticulous, comprehensive, thoughtful, and vivid responses were applied to determine the coach’s suitability for the study.
The purposive criterion sampling method (Miles, Huberman, Huberman, & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1999) resulted in the identification of Mr. Michael (Mike) Spracklen as a unique, Olympic-level, and expert rowing coach (hereafter: Olympic coach) for this study. His history of Olympic-level coaching and podium success in coaching Olympic-level rowers is documented in Table 1 as an example of one significant criterion for selection. He served as head coach for rowing athletes who aspired to compete at the Olympic level over a period of 40 years, mainly during their investment years (Côté & Vierimaa, 2014). The Olympic Games is regarded as the pinnacle of sport experience and is perceived as the most competitive and demanding sport environment for most sports (Rees et al., 2016), often described by athletes as “a defining moment in their careers” (Jensen, Christiansen, & Henriksen, 2014, p. 41). At the time of this research, the Olympic coach had coached Olympic athletes from Great Britain, Japan, Canada,
the USA, and Russia in ten consecutive Olympic quadrennials with a total of twelve Olympic podium performances (Table 1).
Table 1. Olympic Coach's Coaching Record of Podium Performances in Major Events
Year Championship Event Nation Result
1976 Olympics Men’s double sculls Great Britain Silver
1977 World Championships Men’s double scull Great Britain Gold 1978 World Championships Men’s double scull Great Britain Silver
1980 Moscow Olympic Games Men’s four scull Japan Boycott
1984 Olympics Men’s coxed four Great Britain Gold
1985 World Championship Men’s coxless pair Great Britain Silver 1986 World Championships Men’s coxed pair Great Britain Gold 1987 World Championships Men’s coxless pair Great Britain Gold
1987 World Championships Coxed pair Great Britain Silver
1988 Olympics Men’s coxless pair Great Britain Gold
1988 Olympics Men’s coxed pair Great Britain Bronze
1989 World championships Men’s coxless Pair Great Britain Silver 1989 World Championships Men’s coxed four Great Britain Bronze
1990 World Championships Men’s eight Canada Silver
1990 World Championships Women’s single scull Canada Silver
1991 World Championships Men’s eight Canada Silver
1991 World Championships Women’s single scull Canada Gold
1992 Olympics Men’s eight Canada Gold
1992 Olympics Women’s single scull Canada Bronze
1993 World Championships Men’s eight USA Bronze
1994 World Championships Men’s eight USA Gold
1995 World Championships Men’s eight USA Bronze
1996 Olympics Men’s eight USA 5th
1996 Olympics Men’s single sculls Canada Silver
1996 Olympics Women’s single sculls Canada Silver
1997 World Championships Women’s double sculls Great Britain Silver 1998 World Championships Women’s double sculls Great Britain Gold 1998 World Championships Women’s coxless pair Great Britain Silver 2000 Olympics Women’s quadruple sculls Great Britain Silver
2002 World Championships Men’s eight Canada Gold
2003 World Championships Men’s eight Canada Gold
2003 World Championships Men’s coxless four Canada Gold
2004 Olympics Men’s coxless four Canada Silver
2006 World Championships Men’s coxless pair Canada Bronze
2008 Olympics Men’s eight Canada Gold
2008 Olympics Men’s coxless pair Canada Silver
2009 World Championships Men’s eight Canada Silver
2010 World Championships
Women’s lightweight double
scull Canada Gold
2011 World Championships Men’s eight Canada Bronze
2011 World Championships Men’s coxed pair Canada Bronze
2011 World Championships
Women’s lightweight double
scull Canada Silver
2012 Olympics Men’s eight Canada Silver
2014 World Championships Men’s eight Russia 6th
2014 European Championship Men’s eight Russia Silver
2015 European Championship Men’s eight Russia Bronze
2015 European Championship Women’s eight Russia Gold
2015 World Championships Men’s eight Russia 5th place
2015 World Championships Women’s eight Russia 5th place
2016 Olympics Men’s coxless four Russia 6th BF
It should be noted that I (the researcher) had a long history with the Olympic coach as a high-performance consultant with Sport Canada and have extensive knowledge of the Olympic coach’s sport history and the viewpoints of peers and athletes regarding this particular coach. As a researcher, I feel I was able to make an informed determination of his suitability for the study.
This chapter presents the complex challenges involved in coaching expertise research, the questions and methods that shape the research into two studies, the definition of key core
concepts, and an overview of case study research methods. The remainder of this chapter addresses limitations, delimitations and the ethical considerations, situates the researcher in this research, offers a general theoretical framework for the research, and presents the dissertation outline.
Research Focus and Design
Challenges in coaching expertise research.
Expertise results from the dynamic interaction between genetic predispositions, effortful and specific practice, the effective utilization of environmental resources, and self-motivational factors guiding long term relevant engagement (Ericsson, 2013; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993). As noted by Ericsson and Lehmann (1996), the initial task interest and level of ability demanded by the task, and the strategically designed quality and quantity of an aspiring expert’s practice of that particular task, are directly linked to the continuous improvement of performance. With the intention of avoiding arrested or slowed development (Ericsson, 2008), deliberate practice requires a strategic awareness (Zimmerman, 2006) and purposeful
implementation strategies that test the aspiring expert with the necessity for timely, relevant, and challenging procedures. Deliberate practice requires full attention, maximal effort, and fully intentional practices followed by optimal recovery strategies with the exclusive aim to
persistently improve (Ericsson, 2008; Ericsson et al., 1993). Supporting the expert-performance approach (Ericsson & Smith, 1991) and in line with experiential learning (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003), Ford, Coughlan, and Williams (2009) suggested that deliberate practice in sport coaching also refers to a coach’s intention to improve their own practice while engaging in coaching-related activities. Evidence from diverse professional development, engagement, and satisfaction research, describes perspectives on coaching as a calling with a consuming passion (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011, 2012), indicate that the individual engages in a particular life-role, developing a sense of meaningful purpose that holds specific values and goals as primary sources of motivation (Dik & Duffy, 2009). Growth and transformation appear to occur as a result of one’s intention to improve by practicing a variety of specific tasks that are significantly
valued and continuously pursued and enacted with great clarity (Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, 2010). This purposeful, meaningful, and passion-driven engagement in coaching, nurtured by critical self-reflection (Abraham & Collins, 2011; Gilbert & Trudel, 2005; Werthner & Trudel, 2006), and with a consistent orientation towards improvement (Ericsson et al., 1993), appears to make the difference in attainment and consistent improvement in levels of coaching expertise. Therefore, in the complex quest to understand coaching expertise, the coach’s motives for coaching and learning to coach (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; McLean & Mallett, 2012; Vallerand, 1997), the particularities of knowledge that provide the coach a foundation for critical reflection (Abraham, Collins, & Martindale, 2006), and how this knowledge translates in the selection of relevant coaching tasks is revealed. The outcome of the motives, knowledge, and knowledge application results in coaching practice interventions (Hoffman, Feltovich, & Ford, 1997) that, applied in a consistent manner, support athletes’ continuous improvement (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001).
Driven by a principal focus on understanding athletes’ optimal development, coaching research has become a significant area of academic study (Abraham & Collins, 2011). Over the last three decades, there has being a marked increase in defining and evaluating expertise in sport coaching (see Douge & Hastie, 1993; Gilbert & Trudel, 2004; Nash et al., 2012, for reviews). In recent years, a great deal of the criticism of this area of study has focused on the limitations of the research to capture the complexity of coaching and “the erroneous supposition that method can be substituted for individuals, thus giving a synthetic account of the messiest of jobs” (Jones, 2009, p. 377). A second area of concern is the acceptance of research that relied on the study of coaches who were identified as expert on a range of criteria that varied from study to study. The lack of agreement on criteria to substantiate coaching expertise, along with significant variability
in the criteria for inclusion of expert coaches in studies of coaching expertise, and
inconsistencies in the theoretical lenses applied to the study of sport coaching expertise, raise questions about the reliability and validity of these research efforts. Furthermore, research to date has only been driven by academic interest (Nash et al., 2012) without coaches and athletes advocating for what is relevant to them. Progress towards identifying coaching effectiveness and expertise was made with the proposal by Côté and Gilbert (2009) (IDCEE), which is based on a thorough review of coaching, teaching, athlete development, and positive psychology literature, and acknowledges the necessity of the integration of various knowledge sources (Wharton & Rossi, 2015). The integrated definition is as follows “The consistent application of integrated professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge to improve athletes’ competence, confidence, connection, and character in specific coaching contexts” (p. 316).
Four hypotheses arise from the IDCEE. First, effective coaches in any context integrate three forms of knowledge, professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge, towards the enactment of their coaching activities. Second, effective coaches, in any context, support the development of athletes in the areas of competence, confidence, connection, and character. Third, the alignment of coaches’ professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge differs to meet the specificity of coaching contexts. Fourth, expert coaches demonstrate coaching effectiveness consistently. Thus far, the IDCEE, even as an explanatory model, has not been applied in the research nor evaluated as to its representational utility, although it has been widely referenced in coaching materials (e.g., the International Coaching Framework, Version 1.2, 2013).
Nash et al.’s (2012) study of criteria for coaching expertise was also significant in bringing attention to the need for comprehensive criteria to identify coaching experts to enable
research to advance. There has been extensive reference to the Nash criteria in the expert coaching literature (e.g., Collins & Collins, 2014; Cooper & Allen, 2018; Cruickshank, Martindale, & Collins, 2018) regarding its importance for improving the validity of coaching expertise research, and three applications in research literature, only one of which one focuses on sport coaching (Milesteld, Peniza, Paquette, & Trudel, 2018; Staller, Abraham, Poolton, & Körner, 2017; Staller, Cole, Zaiser, & Körner, 2017).
This case study research applied both Côté and Gilbert’s IDCEE and the criteria proposed by Nash et al. (2012) to reflect the expert attributes of this particular Olympic coach. In the examination of the Olympic coach’s practice, two interrelated studies each captured one of the first two components of the IDCEE (coach knowledge, athletes’ outcomes) in light of the third component (context specificity).
Research Questions Accompanying Two Lines of Inquiry
This case study research has been conducted as a comprehensive account of the Olympic coach and is comprised of two separate but interdependent studies exploring the dimensions of a unique individual and the specific impact of his practice within the particularities of the coaching setting. Specifically, this research is best described as an ethnographic case study featuring both the Olympic coach and his athletes in the men’s heavyweight high-performance program in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada from 2001 to 2012. Because the aim was to gain an
understanding of the epistemology of the lived experiences of people in a specific context, from the point of view of those who actually lived the experiences, the research is classified as consistent with ethnographic traditions (Preissle & Grant, 2004; Spradley & McCurdy, 1980).
Between 2001 and 2008, I spent a significant amount of time in the Olympic-level training environment (OLTE) observing the Olympic coach and his athletes during the different
stages of their preparation and competition. Although, I was not a researcher during this seven-year period in which I was involved as a consultant, on a regular basis I documented, using both video and notes, specific practices in the Olympic-level rowing context. I believe my extensive time in the coach and his athletes’ context prior to commencing this study was fundamental to understanding their lived experience. However, the time invested in the same context since 2008, both informally and formally, resulted in the data I collected and used as a qualitative researcher. Thus, following a case study process as defined by Yin (2014), this research “is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (p. 23). This case study aims to “arrive at a sound understanding of the case, a case study should not be limited to the case in isolation but should examine the likely interaction between the case and its context” (p. 321).
This methodology was chosen for a number of reasons, but centrally to portray the different elements of coaching expertise proposed by Côté and Gilbert (2009) as the main theoretical framework for both studies, and to explore the consistency of the Olympic coach’s practice with the Nash criteria, applying constructivism as the overarching theoretical
perspective. In addition, this methodology was used to bring forward critical features underpinning expert coaching practice, in context. As such, the emergent description of the Olympic coach central to this study allows for any and all evidence of expertise to be expressed adequately. Both studies were guided by one main component of IDCEE and the Nash criteria to create a relevant theoretical framework which aimed to answer the specific research questions.
Study one research questions.
Study one positioned the Olympic coach at the centre of the inquiry. His specific knowledge was examined, guided by the constructs of the professional, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal knowledge suggested by Côté and Gilbert (2009) and informed by the Nash criteria for coaching expertise.
Guiding research questions for study one:
1. In what ways do the Olympic-level rowing coach’s coaching practice and demonstrated approaches consistently reflect his professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal
knowledgeas described by Côté and Gilbert (2009).
2. How is the Olympic-level rowing coach’s professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge applied in consideration of positive athlete outcomes in relation to the
context, as described in the integrated definition of effective and expert coaching model? 3. How does the Olympic coach demonstrate characteristics, behaviours, and training
approaches congruent with the criteria proposed by Nash and colleagues to identify an expert coach?
Study two research questions.
Study two positioned the athletes from the Olympic coach’s context at the centre of the inquiry. Their lived experiences in the Olympic coach’s training context, with particular emphasis on the impact of their training and competition environments were explored through their descriptions of the motivational climate, from the dual perspective of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and achievement goal theory (Elliot & Church, 1997; Nicholls, 1984). As well, the domains of knowledge of the Olympic coach, as perceived by his athletes were revealed. The impact of the perceived motivational climate and of the Olympic coach’s
knowledge was considered through the second component of the integrated definition of expert and effective coaching (Côté & Gilbert, 2009), the development of athlete competence,
confidence, connection, and character (4Cs). Guiding research questions for study two:
1. From the points of view of the Olympic level athletes, what was the motivational climate in the OLTE and in what ways did the motivational climate of the Olympic coach’s training environment impact their development of competence, confidence, connection, and character?
2. What influence did the Olympic coach’s specific knowledge bases (i.e., professional, intrapersonal, and interpersonal), as identified by his Olympic level athletes, have on their perceived competence, confidence, connection, and character
Overview of Research Methods
The focus of this study is an in-depth exploration of the attributes and practices of an Olympic level rowing coach. Case studies can be characterized by the adoption of an
exploratory approach to inquiry and the collection of rich, descriptive data that portrays complex human experiences (Silverman, 2006). Qualitative research emphasizes the exploration of realities gained from different points of view. In adopting ethnographic traditions, this research was conducted with the belief that the researcher’s time spent “in-situ” from 2001 to 2008 in training and competitive environments, in addition to the various data sources intentionally collected thereafter, presented a significant opportunity to understand coaching expertise.
Sources of data in the study.
Rowing is an outdoor sport. In Canada, Victoria was identified by the Olympic coach as the best place to train because it offers year-round opportunities to train on the lake. This
ethnographic case study was situated in Elk Lake in Victoria, B.C. Although a physical place, ‘the lake’ is also a symbolic representation of the specific coaching context where the shared endeavour was experienced by the coach and his athletes. Primary data was derived from the Olympic coach’s and the 18 participant athletes’ retrospective views of their experiences in this place during a specific time in their lives. Specifically, data for the first study included six one-on-one, in-depth interviews conducted over 14 months. Guided but not constrained by the IDCEE and the Nash criteria, data gathering used techniques and probing questions (Appendix B, pp. 522-527) similar to that proposed in the work of Nash et al. (2012). Furthermore, for study one, data included two participant observations of the Olympic coach in educational sessions for coaches and athletes, and in a series of coaching practices with aspiring Olympic-level athletes.
These data sources resulted in transcriptions of the in-depth interviews, field notes, and footage, and were supported by historical training documents, historical documentation of awards, and other types of recognition of the Olympic coach. Furthermore, Olympic coach’s own video footage of his coaching practice served as data.
For study two, data was gathered through semi-structured interviews (Patton, 2002) assisted by a visual-elicitation method (Prosser & Schwarz, 1998). The interview sessions were conducted by the researcher with eighteen Olympic level rowing athletes. Secondary sources of data included the review of public domain documentation assisted by text elicitation method (Hodge, Henry & Smith, 2014).
Although most of the research was conducted in Victoria, B.C., Canada, some data, such an interview session with the Olympic coach and participant observation was gathered in
the coach and the athletes continue throughout the research process, mainly via electronic communication. Fourteen interview sessions were conducted in Victoria, two interviews were conducted in Vancouver, and two interviews were conducted on-line, using a digital
conferencing system.
Researcher as instrument.
Due to the researcher’s immersion in the specific OLTE and the thorough selection of sources of data in preparation for the interviews (e.g., searching for and preparing public domain resources) and the sequential research process (i.e., study one conducted with the Olympic coach, then study two conducted with participant athletes), the researcher engaged in a rigorous ongoing process of reflection, encouraging openness and honesty, as part of the research process. This was necessary to maintaining an analytical distance, setting aside any preconceptions, with regards to the participants’ profile and the characteristics of the context (Holt & Sparkes, 2001). By “making the familiar seem strange and making the strange seem familiar, in order to maintain analytical distance” (Holt & Sparkes, 2001, p.242), the researcher reinforced the importance of remaining open to participant’s comments with an unbiased, respectful, sympathetic, and inviting presence. Given that the researcher had some knowledge of each of the participants and the rowing environment, to remain open, self-reflection was guided by making “notes on notes” (Holt & Sparkes, 2001, p. 243) in the researcher’s journal. Writing and reviewing the journal encouraged the researcher to be aware of her own assumptions and growing interest in the topic of her study, in line with the research questions. The honest reflection provided accounts for decisions made during the research process. As an example, the journal review included how the researcher viewed her impact on the conversations, how particular information provoked new insights or confirmed understanding, how she felt at various stages of the process. As Holloway
(1997) suggests, reflexivity “is essential for qualitative research because the researcher is the main research tool; he or she ‘uses the self as an instrument’ ” (p. 136).
For both studies, the researcher aimed to be fully present while listening (Holt & Sparkes, 2001) as a strategy for collecting rich descriptions (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). In using the engaged listening approach, the researcher’s central concern was to be able to be open to and accurately understand the Olympic coach’s insight’s in study one, and the athletes’ points of view on their experiences in study two. This engaged listening stance was perceived as an essential researcher’s skill, and as such, was fundamental to the interviews in which the researcher’s silences, from an empathetic and respectful position (Sparkes, 1998), allowed the Olympic coach, in study one, and the athletes, in study two, to expand openly and genuinely about the meaning of their experiences. Engaged listening allowed the researcher to be fully present in the moment (Barbezat & Bush, 2014), allowing her to be receptive to the details and particularities that the coach and the athletes were communicating.
Engaged listening was also an important skill when transcribing each interview.
Capturing each participant’s “voice”, the researcher immersed herself in the audio data in order to transcribed each interview verbatim. In order to transcribe effectively, the researcher chose to first listen to the recordings of each interview in the place where the particular coaching practice pertinent to this study occurred (the lake). Choosing the lake as a relevant place for listening, assisted in reconstructing the participant’s lived experience as if listening to the interactions between the athletes and their coach from the shoreline of the training venue.
In the second round of engaged listening, the audio interview data were transcribed with efforts to maintain high quality and thoroughness in the transcribed documents. Since
silence (Mero-Jaffe, 2011), the researcher added additional notes relating to these attributes to the participant’s emotional tone in his words.
Understanding how the pre-understandings impacted the research process, meant to be vigilant remaining aware of this influence (Erlingsson, & Brysiewicz, 2017), the research questions served as a tool in guiding this rigorous process throughout the research process. Table 2 summarizes the sources of data exposed to, collected and analysed over a 19 years period during which the researcher had three different types of relationships with the Olympic coach and with the participant athletes.
Table 2. Researcher's Experience in Context-Focused, Data Sources and Purposes
Time Period
2001 – 2007 2008 – 2012 2012 – 2020
Researcher’s Role Athlete and Coach Services Coordinator, Canadian National Sport Centre Pacific
(PacificSport)
Graduate Student Researcher
Researcher’s
Responsibility Identify and create programs aimed to assist athletes and coaches in their high-performance pursuits Investigate literature related to coaching expertise development Explore coaching expertise, coach-athlete-context sensitive while recalling past events Type of Data In-situ participant
observation
reports, visual materials (photographs, video footage) to assist coach and athlete analysis of development
In-situ participant observation
In-depth interviews, visual and text elicitation (photographs, video footage, public domain documentation) and participant observation
Purpose of Data Research: secondary data
analysis Research: secondary data analysis Research: primary data analysis How Data was
Utilized in Research
Review with participants Review with participants
Thematic and narrative analysis with inductive and deductive reasoning
In summary, and influenced by the socially constructed knowledge within the interpretive orientation of this research, the researcher recognized the importance and value of reflexive and respectful acknowledgement that her experiences and her competencies as a researcher
influenced all aspects of the study (Holt & Sparkes, 2001). It is with this level of responsibility that the researcher invested a significant amount of time in reviewing and exploring this case study’s data.
General limitations of the two studies.
As a qualitative case study, as in any research approach, most of the limitations in the study emanate from the methodological approach to and implementation of the research, and how well the researcher has met the degree of rigour and criteria for trustworthiness required. As a case study, this research drew on Creswell and Miller’s (2010) notions of validity within a constructivist framework, with the researcher looking for disconfirming evidence from initial assumptions entering the study, prolonged engagement with and from participants engaged in the phenomena being researched, and use of thick, rich descriptive evidence drawn from multiple data sources. With this in mind, the following limitations in rigour and trustworthiness in this research are noted.
Prolonged engagement: Although I was present and engaged with the Olympic coach for seven years during practice and in other settings, I was not, at that time, engaged in this study.
As a high-performance consultant, I was continually attempting to acquire a deep understanding of the needs of the Olympic coach and of the athletes, but the lack of “research perspective” and clear research intent during that period may limit the trustworthiness of my knowledge gained, of the Olympic coach’s practice.
Thick and rich description: I attempted to provide a detailed account of interactions with the Olympic coach and the participant athletes to make explicit the patterns emerging regarding the context and social relationships in which the Olympic coach (study one), and the participant athletes (study two) grounded their responses to interview questions. I was limited by the requirements for a succinct research document and may not have provided sufficient detail to fully inform the reader.
Negative case analysis: Although I was diligent in paying attention to themes and patterns emerging from the data, it is possible that more analyses could yield more themes.
Peer review or debriefing: Although peer review processes were used in the research, not all themes and their descriptions arising from the data were subject to consistent peer review.
Clarification of the researcher’s bias: Although I explicated my roles as researcher and previous member of support staff for the Olympic coach, the fact that data from the support staff period are used as a secondary data source may undermine the bias-free stance that a qualitative researcher must take in case selection and data interpretation.
Member checking: All transcripts were subjected to member checking as participant validation and as third party checking of coding reliability and validity; however, it is difficult to know how intensely and thoroughly the member (participant, third party coder) engaged in this process.
External audit: An external audit or audit trail is a transparent description of the research steps taken from the start of a research project to the development and reporting of findings. I was diligent in providing such an audit trail.
Triangulation: Although data triangulation was a core procedure in the understanding of the phenomenon of expertise, including diverse data sources from the Olympic coach’s point of view, and the athletes’ points of view, in some instances in the research this may have not been optimally practiced.
In addition, the choice of the particular coach for this study was based on criteria that have been traditionally used in the coaching literature to identify coaching expertise. However, these criteria have been criticized as inadequate to characterize coaching expertise (Nash et al., 2012). Although the Olympic coach was highly successful in producing world champions and Olympic medalists in nine consecutive games, and is highly regarded by athletes and peers, it could be possible that these initial expert criteria are not representative of expertise.
Limitations may have arisen from my challenges writing in my second language. This may have limited my capability to provide rich and precise accounts of my interactions with the Olympic coach and members of his coaching contextual world. As much as possible, these accounts were vetted by other informed persons (peers, other researchers) to clarify intention and meaning in my reporting, description, and interpretation of the data.
Another important limitation to this research is that, although the findings offer valuable sources of meaning and understanding of expertise in coaching, the unique case protocol
includes only the Olympic-level rowing coach’s particular knowledge and understanding and is rooted in his own experiences and the experiences of his athletes. As such, it is difficult to draw generalist explanations and recommendations for other coaches in different sport contexts.
While a single case study has limitations in terms of generalizability, it also has
advantages in terms of the richness of the understandings that it can offer and a high degree of transferability, as elite coaches from other contexts can reflect and perhaps transfer ideas into their own lived experiences (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Richardson, 2000; Sparkes & Smith, 2014).
Specifically, in understanding a complex phenomenon, qualitative research adds a valuable level of reflexivity, meaning that the attitude of attending systematically to the context of knowledge construction at every step of the research process presents a continuous loop for reasoning. Also, because all of my previous personal and professional experiences as a coaching consultant were carefully monitored and documented and are now considered from the
perspective of a researcher, these can be examined in relation to my motivation and
qualifications. From an extensive exploration of the field, gathering perspectives and theoretical foundations related to coach education, I have been guided in the choices of the theories, models, and notions applied for interpretation of the material and for understanding the specific
phenomenon. As noted by Haraway (1991), notions of complete objectivity should be redefined and replaced by situated knowledge, in which the researcher recognizes that knowledge can never be regarded as universal, always in negotiation between competing perspectives but ultimately coherent over time to allow some form of inter-objectivity (Sparkes, 2014). Essentially, this means that the researcher recognizes that knowledge is partial and situated to account adequately for the effects of her position as researcher.
Delimitations.
This research was delimited to a single qualitative case study. Gratton and Jones (2010) argue that a single case approach in understanding human activity requires analyses of its
development over time, the environment, and the context within which the activity occurs. In support of this position, Flyvbjerg (2006) states:
The closeness of the case study to real-life situations and its multiple wealth of details are important in two respects. First, it is important for the development of a nuanced view of reality, including the view that human behavior cannot be meaningfully understood as simply the rule-governed acts found at the lowest levels of the learning process, and in much theory (p. 221).
Of particular interest for this research are Flyvbjerg’s (2006) comments on the use of case study research for the understanding of expertise, or what Bourdieu (1977) identifies as
virtuosos. Flyvbjerg argues that experts, themselves, are guided in their thoughts and actions by their profound and detailed understanding of countless specific cases in their area of expertise. These cases reflect context-dependent knowledge and experience. He contends that if we are to learn from experts, we need to expose their knowledge through their reflections on these context-dependent cases and on their knowledge and experiences. Analytical rationality, he suggests, is ineffectual in representing the types of knowledge that experts have built up through their practice, as it relies on context-independent or generalizable knowledge and conventional rules as a basis for understanding (Flyvbjerg, 2006). This position is held, as well, by coaching expertise researchers (e.g., Jones, 2010; Wharton & Rossi, 2015; Cooper & Allen, 2018).
Despite the obvious applicability of the single case study method to this research, it is important to note that qualitative research, in general, has been critiqued for both its
epistemological orientation and methodological characteristics. Specifically, case study research has been criticized for its perceived lack of external validity and opportunity for generalization and lack of reliability as a function of the potential for bias in case selection and researcher
subjectivity in case information interpretation. As well, there has been extensive criticism for a perceived lack of consensus for assessing the quality and robustness of qualitative case study research.
For the most part, these criticisms emanate from sources dedicated to a quantitative model of research and the use of a hypothetico-deductive model of explanation, valuing prediction and generalization (Creswell, 2014). The hypothetico-deductive model stands in contrast to the qualitative model of research, which is based on inductive reasoning and valuing of deep understanding of a phenomenon that creates recognizable features of accounts that can transfer to or differentiate from one context to another.
Yin (2014) provides a cogent argument that clearly refutes the criticism of the inability to generalize from a case study, appealing to the difference between analytic generalization and statistical generalization. Yin states, “in analytic generalization, previously developed theory is used as a template against which to compare the empirical results of the case study” (p. 67). This type of generalization is realized through qualitative research. Statistical or empirical
generalization is described as occurring when “an inference is made about a population (or universe) on the basis of empirical data collected about a sample” (p. 67) and is realized through quantitative research. Each type of generalization is important in advancing our understanding of any research issue. In contrast to generalization, as noted earlier, qualitative researchers use the criterion of transferability to further increase the rigour of their work (Creswell & Miller, 2010). Transferability refers to the researcher’s effort to make all aspects of the research
transparent with sufficient detail to allow the reader to determine the applicability of the research and research outcomes to issues and contexts with which the reader is familiar.
The issues of the potential for researcher subjectivity in data interpretation and biased selection of cases merit consideration in the choice of case study research, as these two issues emanate from the researcher’s ethical stance towards the research. Both of these potential problems for case study research can be mitigated through the degree of rigour (quality and robustness) that the researcher commits to in conducting their research, which is another area of criticism for case study research. Despite claims to the contrary, there are clear guidelines for ensuring and demonstrating rigour in qualitative studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1991; Yin, 2014) and there continue to be robust discussions in the qualitative literature on this important issue to guide the research (Yin, 2014). Rigour refers to the quality or state of being very exact and careful, acting with strict precision, or the quality of being thorough and accurate.
Trustworthiness refers to the quality, authenticity, and truthfulness of findings of qualitative research and relates to the degree of trust or confidence that the readers have in results, based on the manner in which the research is conducted (Lincoln & Guba, 1991). There has been
considerable discussion about the use of the term rigour or trustworthiness. However, rigour refers to the standard to which the researcher must adhere, and trustworthiness describes how that standard is reached. Morse (2015) has suggested that prolonged engagement, persistent observation, thick and rich description, negative case analysis, peer review or debriefing, clarification of the researcher's bias, member checking, external audits, and triangulation are guiding strategies for ensuring rigour and trustworthiness in a qualitative study. In choosing to conduct single case study research, both the appropriateness of the approach for the research question and a commitment to a high standard of rigour and fulfillment of the criteria for trustworthiness were the determining factors.
The study was also delimited to purposive sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990, 1999, 2001), which is widely used in qualitative case study research. Purposive sampling is consistent with the expectations of conducting qualitative research, which include achievement of a very deep level of understanding of the phenomena under study. This type of sampling requires the identification and selection of individual(s) or groups who are particularly
experienced with and well-informed about the phenomenon of interest in the research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). This characteristic of purposively sampling participants ensures that the case study is “information rich” (Patton, 2001) and will meet the criteria for an in-depth
description and analysis of the phenomenon under study. In addition, it is important that the participant(s) are available, willing to engage in the research, and have the skills to articulately describe their experiences related to the phenomenon of interest, and to do so in a thoughtful yet vivid manner (Bernard, 2002).
Ethical considerations.
This research was conducted in accordance with the terms of Ethics Approval (Ethics Protocol 16-091) issued by the University of Victoria (Appendix C, p. 528).
Following completion of the ethics approval process through the Human Research Ethics Board, my request to utilize the archived documentation of this researcher’s professional
experiences with the rowing program from 2001 to 2008 was granted by the targeted participants and the President of National Sports Centre in Victoria, British Columbia (formerly PacificSport Victoria). These data were to be utilized as a secondary source of data (Appendix D, E, and F, pp. 529-545).
All participants agreed to voluntary participation in in-depth interviews. Participants were considered to be at minimal risk of possible harms beyond those normally encountered in their lives as professional experts or staff, or as members of the community.
Confidentiality was discussed in detail with all participants. Because of his very high profile in the sport of rowing, the anonymity of the Olympic coach could not be achieved and athletes in his community may also be identified. All participants were aware of this issue before they agreed to be part of the research. Further detail on participant selection, along with measures for protection of privacy, are noted for each study in chapters two and three.
Steering Towards and Through this Research: The Researcher’s Voice
As Creswell (2009) and Stake (1995) note, qualitative enquiry is shaped by the ontology the researcher brings to the study. The questions asked, the methods selected, and the
subjectivities that shape conclusions are interwoven with the researcher’s own experiences. Thus, the importance and responsibility to ensure being totally honest and aware of personal values and beliefs, being sensitive to ethical considerations, and the commitment to reciprocity of trust with those recruited to participate in the research (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).
The following section describes my researcher’s voice, offering an overview of my path into this research, and my ontological stance which frames my epistemological views, thus informing the methodological design the for each of the two case studies and stand in the concluding chapter in this research.
This research is the culmination of my love for sport, rooted in a deep motivation towards contributing to creating engaged, invested, and active communities.
I grew up in Chile. From a young age I lived in the countryside, and thus active living was a natural way of life. In time, being exposed to organized sport programs, I grew deeply interested in team sports.
I am not a rower and I am not a coach of Olympic medalists. However, as an international-level athlete, high-level certified coach, and coach educator, I have devoted a significant amount of time and effort to pursuing the understanding of excellence. I have been privileged to represent two countries at the international level in my sport of field hockey and while I did not succeed in reaching the Olympic podium, I am, nonetheless, still in love with sport, with a sense of gratitude.
Early in 2001, after concluding my master’s degree which addressed athletic career retirement and transitions, I was fortunate to earn a position as an athlete and coach services coordinator with the National Sports Centre in Victoria, British Columbia (formerly PacificSport Victoria). Responsibilities in my role were to create and implement programs for elite athletes and coaches that would best support well-rounded development during preparation and after their Olympic pursuit. In order to accomplish my professional responsibilities, I focused attention on each of the sport’s intricate structures and norms, listened to its members, and allowed time to build trust between myself, the coach, the athletes, and the institution that I served. Working in this role for seven years, my purpose was to learn as much as possible from each sport setting, its hierarchical structure, the individuals, goals, and particular demands of their programs. This, in turn, informed the type and the quality of services implemented, aimed at meeting coaches’ and athlete’ needs. There were significant lessons that made me realized the importance of capturing and documenting the lived experiences of those involved in impactful sport programs. Driven by
a need to formalize this interest, I decided to commence my doctoral degree, focusing my attention on coaching expertise in the sport of rowing.
I was drawn to the sport of rowing for two reasons. First, rowing, like any other high-performance sport, demands an inordinate amount of time and financial commitment, the need to juggle numerous responsibilities during a critical time in a person’s life, transitioning to a
definite commitment for mastering the sport (Wylleman, Alfermann, & Lavallee, 2004). Rowing is a late specialization sport (Baker, Cobley, & Fraser-Thomas, 2009), and in Victoria, B.C., the rowing community is situated at Elk lake and includes the involvement of high schools, local clubs, varsity, and high-performance, which in turn attracts athletes who are in the investment years (Côté & Vierimaa, 2014), those years in which they are at the peak of their athletic
engagement and competitiveness. Observing how athletes engage in rowing year-round and start their practice in the very early hours of the morning offered an exceptional experience, blending the stunning scenery of an awakening day with the display of clear purpose by the athletes and the coach, which truly captivated me (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Row at dawn. Winter of 2007, Elk lake, Victoria, B. C. (Photo courtesy Kevin Light)
Secondly, I was drawn to rowing because of the very direct and honest approach to the sport and to his athletes that the Olympic coach consistently demonstrated and the evidence of his challenging and successful trajectory as a coach with different national programs. Both of these factors inspired me to follow his rowing program, in particular, with a special interest.
Reflections on these paths and experiences have led me to articulate a particular
epistemology as a researcher in conducting this research. My ontological position is framed by the belief, emerging from my lived experiences, that truth is relative to and unique to the individual. As we come to interact with others, this opens new information to be exposed, thus the possibilities of new ideas evolving as a result of engaging with and giving value to the new information which forms our understanding of the world. In this research, comprised of two separate but interdependent studies, I endeavoured to bring together varying perspectives where knowledge was understood and meaning constructed. Placing people at the centre, the varying perspectives included: (1) the participants’ interpretations, perceptions, beliefs, and lived experiences, within the specific context and social practices which organized a specific cultural place; and (2) my own lived experiences, emerging from the research process which deeply informed my own interpretations, insights, values, and transformation as a researcher.
Truth: Although I search for an answer to the question of “What are the significant dimensions of coaching expertise?” I know truth is not always universal, constant, and certain. Truth is dynamic and can be understood through different perspectives; it will be understood and experienced differently by each individual within the coaching context and the time that it is claimed or reflected upon. Therefore, I search for a better understanding of coaching expertise and its impact, including diverse perspectives.
As I believe that we live in an organic system, a living community where all elements of the organization are constantly interacting, giving potential to growth and adaptation by
challenge and support, I believe truth to be contextual and relational. As researcher, I learned to be patient and fully present, fully invested, empathically attuned, and appropriately responsive in listening while constructing my own perspectives, giving voice to the coach and athletes to advocate a form of their own truth. This is central to the credibility of my continual search for a better understanding of human potential. It is perhaps in this pursuit that, in time, the facts revealed themselves in the many forms that are needed to understand the complex phenomenon of coaching expertise.
This research employs different qualitative methodological approaches (case study methods following ethnographic traditions, and in-depth interviews) to the questions and are directly related to the epistemology reflected in the following questions: What is this specific Olympic coach’s knowledge? How is knowledge acquired and applied? How is this knowledge shared to impact others? How is this knowledge collectively constructed? How is this knowledge experienced by the social members where coaching occurs? Influenced by Wilber’s (1997) spectrum of consciousness, the validity claims are brought forward in this document, merging the different voices within the research. This allows for the reader to view the claims from: (a) The objective personal lived experience from the participant’s standpoint, which are presented in the third person (he/they); (b) The collective inter-objective stance, also presented in the third person; (c) The inter-subjective stance presented in second person (you), and (d) The subjective individual-interior standpoint, presented in first person (I). As such, understanding is enhanced by choosing the most relevant voice, changing from the passive and impersonal to the active and personal (I) when appropriate.
