Clifford Mallett

Giddens A.

Lyle J.

Mallett C.

Steven Rynne

Templin T.

Crossref

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

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

Rynne, Steven

Mallett, Clifford

University of Queensland eSpace

Understanding the Change Process:
Valuing What it is That Coaches do
A Commentary
Steven Rynne and Clifford Mallett 
School of Human Movement Studies
The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, 4072, Australia
E-mail: cmallett@hms.uq.edu.au
INTRODUCTION
The ultimate aim of coach education is to improve coaching practice. Specifically, coach
educators, who are responsible in leading change, seek to affirm productive coaching
practices and challenge those in which behaviour change is desirable. Sports coaches (and
those who are charged with the responsibility of educating coaches) do desire increased
certainty and predictability in the pursuit of optimal practice; however, many scholars have
underscored the complexity and ‘muddiness’ in pursuing that primary aim [e.g., 1].
Therefore, any attempt to improve our understanding of the change process and subsequently
inform appropriate change has merit. As such, Cassidy should be commended for her attempt
to stimulate discussion regarding how those wishing to initiate change (where appropriate)
might better understand the enablers and barriers to the change process and subsequently
consider suitable ways in which to approach that challenging endeavour. The central tenant
of Cassidy’s argument is clear: using a rational argument to change practice is limited if
consideration is not given to the way coaches learn how to coach. Furthermore, she argues
the utility of the notion of ‘knowledgeability’ within Giddens’ (1984) Structuration theory [2]
as an explanatory framework. There is plethora of literature on innovation and change and
so our commentary considers the explanatory power of using Giddens’ concept of
knowledgeablility and its potential contribution to the sports coaching literature. Before
progressing to a commentary on the use of this concept, we examine Cassidy’s
characterisation of coaching work.
CASSIDY’S CHARACTERISATION OF COACHING
Cassidy introduces the article with a comment about ‘languaging issues’ in the coaching
science literature. Although we consider ‘languaging’ an issue [e.g., 3], we are unsure that
attempts to address the issue were “based upon the assumptions that coaching is a rational
process” (p. 143). In describing the flaws of employing a ‘rational process’ view of coaching,
Cassidy emphasised the notion of uncertainty. Previous authors have also noted the
problematic nature of viewing coaching as a reductive, series of knowable steps [e.g., 4, 5].
Indeed coaching has been specifically characterised in relation to its uncertain or chaotic
nature [e.g., 1]. From our work with Australian Institute and Academy of Sport (AIA)
coaches and those in professional sports (e.g., Australian Football League), it is clear that
Cassidy’s characterisation of the coaching environment as ‘uncertain’ is apt.
Similarly, we agree with her contention that much of what coaches ‘do’ is comprised of
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010 177
‘taken-for-granted’ practices, which is an important point. As well as having the potential to
enhance learning and subsequent practice (as demonstrated by researchers employing
experiential learning theories), previous experiences may serve to reinforce negative
practice, limit innovation or at least may not actively encourage critical thought [6]. As
Cassidy rightly points out, ignoring or underestimating the importance of these taken-for-
granted elements has serious implications for the effectiveness of any program of education
(e.g., hidden curriculum in PE teaching literature). Nevertheless, we cannot assume coaches
are conscious of what are taken-for-granted behaviours. Indeed, can we identify these taken-
for-granted elements? How do these practices become identifiable? Is mediated reflection
key to identifying these taken-for-granted coaching practices? Perhaps Cassidy should have
provided some examples of these taken-for-granted practices to enrich the discussion. Her
example from Norman’s research [7] seems to cloud issues between policy and coach
behaviour change. 
KNOWLEDGEABILITY AS A FRAMEWORK
In previous work, Cassidy and Tinning [8] and others [e.g., 9] argued the utility of socio-
cultural frameworks for examining the dynamic process of socialisation in teacher education.
Specifically, this framework for investigating socialisation has assisted in explaining the
slippage between the intended message (e.g., from the coach educator) and the message that
was received (e.g., by the coach as student) and enacted. Nevertheless, neither the
functionalist (i.e., maintenance of social order through social structures and institutions) nor
symbolic interactionist (i.e., individuals’ beliefs, values and identities) perspectives privilege
the dialectical relationship between human action and social structure. An appreciation of the
dialectical approach promotes an examination of coaching as a dynamic process in which
there is consideration of the recursive relationship (interdependency) between agency
(human action) and structure (social and organisational influences) [e.g., 10]. This is an issue
that has strongly influenced the research frameworks that we have previously adopted.
Consequently, we have used workplace learning theories [11] in an attempt to consider the
notion of relational interdependence between structure and agency in the coach learning
context [e.g., 10]. 
Cassidy proposes the use of the framework of knowledgeability, which is a key concept
within the work of sociologist Anthony Giddens and in particular, his Structuration theory.
Specifically she draws upon two of the three components of knowledgeability [12] –
discursive consciousness and practical consciousness; however, she foregrounds the utility
of the latter in terms of the opportunities and barriers for understanding change process
within coach education and subsequent coaching practice. Practical consciousness might be
a useful tool for examining why social reproduction is commonplace within sports coaching
practice and might subsequently assist with behaviour change. It is expected that coach
educators have intentions of developing coaching practice in those they intend to ‘educate’
through their pedagogy; however, the potential for ‘slippage’ as espoused by Cassidy is
probable. Central to this slippage is the challenge of ‘new’ information for the ‘ontological
security’ of the coach. Cassidy suggested that “by beginning the change process from within
existing and shared realities it is possible that coaches and coach educators will maintain
their ontological security, as well as their faith in the coherence of the practices, thereby
developing an emotional commitment to the change process” (p. 145). Cassidy introduces
the concept of ‘ontological security’, but neither explains the term nor clarifies its link with
the notion of practical consciousness. Nevertheless, while it is certainly possible to maintain
ontological security, the question might be posed: Is the absolute maintenance of ontological
178 Understanding the Change Process: A Commentary
security potentially problematic? The maintenance of ontological security will be highly
desirable in the majority of situations, but is there value in the slight perturbation of it at
selected times and in selected cases (i.e., constructive threatening of the coach’s ontological
security)? Unfortunately, Cassidy does not explain ‘ontological security’ and more
specifically how it might relate to sports coaching. Furthermore, Cassidy fails to elucidate on
how practical consciousness can be used as a tool within coach education (and perhaps more
broadly within sports coaching). Perhaps in the reflective process some consideration of
bringing the practical consciousness to the discursive consciousness might be generative. 
The uncritical reproduction of existing practice is a current limitation in how coaches
develop their craft and an examination of the slow process of change (if at all) is worthy of
investigation. The benefit of using the notion of practical consciousness is that it provides a
tool for examining and making sense of the ‘slippage’ between the aims of coach education
and the coach behaviour change process – social reproduction and/or production.
Nevertheless, a concern might be the overuse of such a tool that creates dogma within coach
education. Moreover, while we support the utility in investigating the day-to-day routines
and regimes of sports coaches, this line of research has the potential to reduce an
understanding of coaches’ work to some key aspects of ‘practical consciousness’ rather than
recognise and value the idiosyncratic, complex, and dynamic nature of coaches’ work. That
is, we need to be modest in our expectations of this potential tool. Our research has shown
the considerable variation in day-to-day routines of high performance coaches both within
and between teams, clubs and organizations [10, 13].
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
While the notion of practical consciousness (within the concept of knowledgeability) was
raised in terms of its possible explanatory power, it is reasonable to link this to the practical
implications for coach education. In contemplating these implications, there were some
issues that came to mind that needed further consideration. 
The first is whether or not the framework of knowledgeability would be equally
generative for understanding the change process at all levels of coaching. Our initial sense is
that it may be most applicable in the behaviour change of high-performance coaches (as
opposed to community coaches). The reason for this is that there may be more scope for the
meaningful analysis of routines and regimes, and the subsequent initiation of change from
within existing and shared realities. That is, the need for change might be perceived as more
important for high-performance coaches. If this is the case, then it is not surprising that
Cassidy draws on the comments of elite women coaches in supporting her contention [7].
It is also clear that coaches will not be asked to proceed down this path on their own.
Cassidy indicates that coaches and coach educators will be involved. This has significant
implications for the skills required by those hoping to guide and support coaches. Those
responsible for the education of teachers generally have extensive educational experience
and post-graduate qualifications. It is probably unrealistic to assume that this will be the
same for coach educators outside of universities, but to facilitate the change process (as
discussed in Cassidy’s paper) a similar skill set will be required. Indeed, if ontological
security is to be constructively threatened, then highly skilled educators would be a necessity.
Finally, given the proposed foregrounding of what it is that coaches ‘do’, perhaps this
might be seen as a loose endorsement of competency-based training as a framework for
large-scale coach education, which we know is problematic.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 5 · Number 2 · 2010 179
CONCLUSION
Cassidy problematises the rational process view of coaching and her acknowledgement of
the issues associated with the taken-for-granted nature of many coaching behaviours.
Moreover, she infers the limited impact of coach education in the change process. Giddens’
concept of knowledgeability, and specifically practical consciousness, may provide a useful
analytical tool for examining the slippage between the intended and the enacted; however,
Cassidy does not provide convincing arguments for: a) why it is generative, i.e., its
explanatory power; b) how it can be used as an analytical tool; or c) a clear link between the
concept of knowledgeability and the way in which coaches learn. Moreover, some clear
examples of taken-for-granted coaching practices were not presented, which would have
assisted the arguments for using practical consciousness as an analytical tool for behaviour
change.
REFERENCES
1. Bowes, I. and Jones, R. L., Working at the Edge of Chaos: Understanding Coaching as a Complex,
Interpersonal System, The Sport Psychologist, 2006, 20, 235-245.
2. Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1984. 
3. Mallett, C. J., Trudel, P., Lyle, J. and Rynne, S. B., Formal vs. Informal Coach Education, International
Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 2009, 4, 325-334.
4. Jones, R. L., Coaching Redefined: An Everyday Pedagogical Endeavour, Sport, Education and Society, 2007,
12(2), 159-173.
5. Lyle, J., Sports Coaching Concepts: A Framework for Coaches’ Behaviour, Routledge, London, 2002.
6. Eraut, M., Informal Learning in the Workplace, Studies in Continuing Education, 2004, 26(2), 247-273.
7. Norman, L., The UK Coaching System is Failing Women Coaches, International Journal of Coaching
Science, 2008, 3, 447-464.
8. Cassidy, T. and Tinning, R., ‘Slippage’ is not a Dirty Word: Considering the Usefulness of Gidden’s Notion
of Knowledgeability in Understanding the Possibilities for Teacher Education, Teaching Education, 2004,
15, 175-188. 
9. Templin, T. and Schempp, P., eds., Socialization into Physical Education: Learning to Teach, Benchmark
Press, Indianapolis, IN, 1989.
10. Rynne, S. B., Mallett, C. and Tinning, R., High Performance Sport Coaching: Institutes of Sport as Sites for
Learning, International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 2006, 1(3), 223-233.
11. Billett, S., Relational Interdependence between Social and Individual Agency in Work and Working Life,
Mind, Culture and Activity, 2006, 13(1), 53-69.
12. Giddens, A., Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Polity Press, Cambridge,
1991.
13. Mallett, C., Rossi, T. and Tinning, R., Report to the AFL: Coaching Knowledge, Learning and Mentoring in
the AFL, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 2007.
180 Understanding the Change Process: A Commentary


Understanding the change process: valuing what it is that coaches do

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:210029/UQ210029_OA.pdf

Understanding the change process: valuing what it is that coaches do

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

University of Queensland eSpace