Abstract Increasing global interest in coaching science research has resulted in a greater recognition of the complexities and dynamics existing in the coaching process (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003). Associated with the dynamic and complex nature of the coaching process are the many social relationships that operate within this process. A high performance coach’s network is often associated with athletes, officials, support staff and administrators. In essence, coaches form dynamic social networks (DSN; (Mallett, Rossi, & Tinning, 2007) that are paramount to developing their coaching practice, and therefore their coaching knowledge. The aim of this project was to understand how high performance football coaches (HPFC) learn. The research questions were as follows: • What are the major sources of information for HPFC? • What sources of information are most valuable to the HPFC? • What role does the interaction with other coaches’ play in developing knowledge? In order to better understand the nature of coach interactions in developing knowledge it is useful to consider the notions of communities of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998), networks of practice (NoP) (Nichani & Hung, 2002), informal knowledge networks (IKN) (Allee, 2000) and dynamic social networks (DSN) (Mallett, et al., 2007). This qualitative research was conducted with six high performance football coaches (HPFC) in Australia using semi-structured interviews. Each interview was transcribed and analysed into meaning units through the process of triangular consensus. The coaches in this sample did not display a fully functioning CoP, IKN, or NoP. The HPFCs failed to display the critical element of a joint enterprise. Mutual engagement was partially reported between coaches of the same team but was not reported between opposition coaches. The coaches reported the final element of a shared repertoire. Nichani & Hung’s (2002) notion of a NoP and Allee’s (2000) research on IKN were considered as possible social networks to describe the coaching context. These coaches did not develop relationships that could be characterised as a NoP. The data suggests that the development of knowledge through face-to-face interactions with other people was valued over use of Internet exchanges and chat rooms. There was evidence to suggest the formation of a coaches’ IKN, however it is proposed that this was not the major source for these coaches in developing knowledge. Most importantly it was found that HPFC in the Australian context are engaged in a DSN. It was reported by the coaches in this study that their interactions are dynamic, in that they change throughout their careers to the extent that their people of influence can be numerous; this is due to two key findings. The nature of the work of HPFC is highly contested and thus the information and knowledge is sacred. This is a barrier for information and knowledge transfer and can inhibit learning. In addition finding a person of influence is a lengthy process as it can take years to build mutual trust and respect. By understanding how coaches learn their craft through their interactions with others, coach development could potentially assist coaches through the learning process.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/288361 |
| Creators | Joseph Occhino |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds