Exploring the Influence of a Solution-Focused Coaching Intervention on Coach Communication

Skills and Athlete Self-Actualization: An Action Research Study

by

Elaine Cook

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education
University of Toronto

Elaine Cook

January 14, 2020

© Copyright by Elaine Cook, 2020
Exploring the Influence of a Solution-Focused Coaching Intervention on Coach Communication
Skills and Athlete Self-Actualization: An Action Research Study

Elaine Cook

Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education

University of Toronto

2020

Abstract

This action-research project, which involved a year long, humanistic communication intervention

with a female interuniversity sport team, aimed to disrupt the dominant sport discourses that

contribute to harmful coach behaviour, athlete compliance and docility. The research questions

included: (i) Do solution-focused coaching skills improve the communication skills/behaviours of

the coaches?; Are dominant coaching discourses interrupted? If so, how do these changes occur?;

(ii) Does solution-focused communication influence the self-actualizing processes of these

athletes?; (iii) Does the intervention appear to change team culture, and if so, in what ways?

Using a case study design, a critical approach to thematic discourse analysis (Batel & Castro,

2018; Braun & Clark, 2006) and an interpretive comparative analysis (Fram, 2013, Thorne, 2000)

was used to evaluate the effects of a solution-focused coaching intervention on coach learning

and development, which was the purpose of this study. The effects were evaluated by their

impact on team culture and the self-actualization processes of the athletes. Measures included

coach learning sessions, weekly cycles of reflection, planning and action, audio recordings,

observations, athlete interviews, written communication and artifacts. Through the perceptions of

both coaches and athletes, the team culture transformed from disengaged to engaged, powerful

team hierarchies were broken down and conversations became more inclusive, courageous and

adult. The athletes’ ability to self-reflect, their agency, and personal insights were amplified. The

ii
performance of the team was enhanced. The findings of this collaborative study emphasize the

utility of a humanistic, strengths-based approach to coach communication as a means of

positively influencing athlete development and team culture. As such, it provides valuable

information and insight that may contribute positively to our understanding of how to effectively

influence coach learning and development, what constitutes coach learning and development, and

the implications of emphasizing communication as a fundamental coaching skill.

iii
 Dedication

This work is dedicated to coaches and athletes, and the work they do together.

iv
 Acknowledgements

This is never a solitary journey, although it may feel that way at times. Six and half years

is a long time; it felt like a long time - sometimes interminably long - and all the while life

continued on around me. There were births, deaths, divorce, heart surgeries, disappointments and

great successes; that would not wait until this work was completed. And now that it is finally

complete and my life long goal of earning a doctorate is a reality, I have discovered that nothing

much has really changed; life continues on without any significant disruption or fanfare. There

are still births, deaths, disappointments and successes, laundry, dishes, kid’s homework, and

family squabbles, only now I experience them with a Dr. in front of my name. There is some

small satisfaction in that - though I’d still really like a house elf.

It seems cliché, yet there are so many people to thank and acknowledge, those who guided

me and taught me, those who participated, as well as those who supported. Each is as important

as the other.

Firstly, there is my supervisor Dr. Gretchen Kerr. She is a role model extraordinaire. I

have seriously considered having a bracelet made, WWGD (what would Gretchen do). She leads

from behind, asks good questions, is profoundly humble and incredibly discerning. People

around her feel valued. Certainly, I did. Gretchen gave me the autonomy I needed, as well as the

support. In perfect balance. Thank you.

Dr. Katherine Tamminen is a powerhouse. Fiercely smart and focused, yet approachable

and generous. There is a part of me that always wishes I had been as attentive and conscious as

Katherine, when I was younger. Her attention to detail is second to none and my work is better as

a result. I am a better researcher as a result. Thank-you.

v
 Dr. Joe Baker showed kindness and encouragement that was transformative. Such acts

always shape a person. He also brought a quantitative perspective, which challenged me to think

about my research in different ways - which then shaped the research. Thank you.

Dr. John Wallace provokes an elevated perspective. The kind and gentle exterior reflects a

kind and gentle interior that does not flinch in the face of tough questions, but perhaps delights in

them. Thank you.

It goes without saying that the coaches and athletes of the team deserve the greatest credit.

Without the courage of the coaches, their willingness to try something different, to examine their

own practices and ways of being, without their dedication to the athletes, this collaboration would

not have been possible. The athletes took it all in stride, working hard (like all varsity athletes

do), working through the struggles, reflecting, learning and growing. It was a privilege to be part

of a team, embedded in the wins and losses, the growth and discovery. I was inspired by what we

accomplished together. I was inspired by their dedication and passion. Thank you.

I had a critical friend, who appears throughout this work, Brian Freel. His contributions,

his role as a critical friend, his insights and analysis, helped to shape this study in ways that are

hard to describe. There were times when he listened, times when he challenged, times when he

simply supported me - it was all perfect. I am forever grateful. Thank you.

Then there is family. My parents who have always been an inspiration, who have

supported me through the toughest of times, and modelled perseverance in ways too numerous to

list. I do not have words to express my appreciation for the lives they have lived. Thank you. My

daughter Brennyn, whose name means one who brings light to the world, is aptly named. I am

unable to count the times she lifted me from the depths of discouragement, sat by my bedside in

hospitals, refused to let me give up, was my workout partner, inspired me with her own BHAG

goals, and brought everyone together to celebrate the small achievements along the way. She is

vi
light in my world always. Thank you. My son Kohen, who defended his PhD in biogeochemical

oceanography (which took me years just to learn to say) six months before me, has always set the

bar high and amazed me with the results. He has a beautiful mind, both creative and analytical - a

rare combination. Sharing this doctoral journey with him has been a gift. I look forward to all the

adventures our futures offer. Thank you. My youngest son Garrett, in some ways has hardly

known a mother who wasn’t working on her doctorate. At 14, I have been studying for almost

half his life. I hope that it has made more of positive impression, than a negative; that I have set

for him an example of female independence and motherhood he values. Thank you Garrett for all

your love and support.

Family however, isn’t always a genetic phenomenon. There is our chosen family. Those

who love us like sisters and mothers. Eileen Freel, your courage and persistence are a constant

source of inspiration, not to mention that you are the best friend ever. Dillon and Claire, you are

both so wildly generous and have been so supportive. Thank you all.

Though it may seem strange, I must acknowledge my fur babies. My 17 year old puppy,

Mojo, has faithfully sat by my feet while writing for days and weeks on end, curled up beside me

during sleepless nights, allowed me to cry into his soft, silky coat, taken me for countless walks

when I needed a break and loved me through it all, unconditionally (as animals tend to do). He

has been my constant companion. I am deeply aware, that I as complete this arduous journey, his

journey is also ending. Then there is Caramel, the cat that Mojo rescued a few years ago during a

snow storm. She turned me into a cat lover - something I never imagine possible. Having her

walk across the keyboard at the most in-opportune times, boss me around in ways only cats can,

curl up on my lap and enchant me with her deep, luxurious purrs has been transformative. Thank

you both.

vii
 To all of my dear friends, whom I have not mentioned by name, I love you dearly and

appreciate the support and encouragement you have given me over these many year. Your names

are written on my heart.

Thank you all.

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. xv

List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................xvi

List of Appendices....................................................................................................................... xvii

CHAPTER ONE .............................................................................................................................. 1

Research Orientation ........................................................................................................................ 3

Action Research ........................................................................................................................... 4

Sport Culture and the Problem ......................................................................................................... 7

Response and Philosophical Framework.................................................................................... 10

Theoretical Frameworks ................................................................................................................. 12

Critical Humanistic Psychology ..................................................................................................... 12

Critical Discourse Theory .......................................................................................................... 13

Cultural Psychology ................................................................................................................... 14

Study Aims ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Research Questions ........................................................................................................................ 15

Rationale......................................................................................................................................... 16

Operational Definitions .................................................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................................................................... 20

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 20

Humanistic Psychology .................................................................................................................. 21

Self-Actualization........................................................................................................................... 25

Solution-focused Approach ............................................................................................................ 27

The Intersection of Discourse, Cultural Psychology and Solution-Focused Work ........................ 32

Language, Communication and Culture ..................................................................................... 32

ix
 Language. ............................................................................................................................... 32
Communication. ..................................................................................................................... 33
Discourse and Narrative. ........................................................................................................ 34
Culture. ................................................................................................................................... 35
Summary. ............................................................................................................................... 36

Sport Discourse and Culture........................................................................................................... 37

Sport Culture. ......................................................................................................................... 37
Coach Power........................................................................................................................... 38
Disciplinary Power. ................................................................................................................ 39
Athlete Docility. ..................................................................................................................... 40
Outcomes. ............................................................................................................................... 41

Coaching Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 41

Coach Learning and Development ................................................................................................. 43

Formal Learning. .................................................................................................................... 46
Non-Formal Learning. ............................................................................................................ 47
Informal Learning................................................................................................................... 47
Experiential Learning. ............................................................................................................ 48

Coach Development Programs ....................................................................................................... 53

Professional vs Interpersonal CDPs ....................................................................................... 54
Strategies and Theory. ............................................................................................................ 54

Using a Coaching Model for Coach Learning................................................................................ 55

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS......................................................... 57

Mental Model ................................................................................................................................. 57

Ontology and Epistemology ........................................................................................................... 59

Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 62

Positionality .................................................................................................................................... 66

The Critical Friend ......................................................................................................................... 70

Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 72

x
 Guiding Principles. ................................................................................................................. 74
Study Procedures - Coaches. .................................................................................................. 74
Study Procedures – Athletes................................................................................................... 78

Critical Friends ........................................................................................................................... 80

The Case Study........................................................................................................................... 83

Research Design ......................................................................................................................... 84

The Participants/Co-researchers ................................................................................................. 85

The Coaches. .......................................................................................................................... 85
The Athletes. .......................................................................................................................... 85

Context ....................................................................................................................................... 85

Intervention and Measures ............................................................................................................. 87

Coach Learning Sessions........................................................................................................ 87
Demographic Questionnaires. ................................................................................................ 89
Conversations. ........................................................................................................................ 89
Audio Recordings. .................................................................................................................. 89
Observations. .......................................................................................................................... 90
Survey Measures. ................................................................................................................... 90
Other Data. ............................................................................................................................. 91

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 92

Critical interpretive orientation. ............................................................................................. 93
Thematic Discourse Analysis. ................................................................................................ 93
Interpretive Comparative Analysis. ........................................................................................ 97
Theory and Practice. ............................................................................................................... 98
Data Preparation. .................................................................................................................... 98
Comparative Analyses............................................................................................................ 98

CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................................ 100

Findings and Discussion............................................................................................................... 100

Personal Narrative ........................................................................................................................ 101

xi
 Our Best Hopes. ................................................................................................................... 102
So What Else? ...................................................................................................................... 107
Thank-you Pat Summit......................................................................................................... 118
The Coaches’ AAR. ............................................................................................................. 128

Findings: Research Question One ................................................................................................ 134

RQ1: Dominant Discourses .......................................................................................................... 134

Overview of Sport and Coaching Discourses....................................................................... 135

Discourse Themes and Examples ............................................................................................. 136

The hard work theme. ........................................................................................................... 136
The great sport myth theme. ................................................................................................. 138
The end justifies the means theme. ...................................................................................... 139
The coach as expert theme. .................................................................................................. 140
Good players want this. ........................................................................................................ 141

RQ1: Coach’s Behaviour.......................................................................................................... 144

RQ1: How? ............................................................................................................................... 149

Other Evidence. .................................................................................................................... 158

The Assistant Coach ................................................................................................................. 159

Athlete Interviews. ............................................................................................................... 162
The After Action Review. .................................................................................................... 164

RQ2: Athlete Findings ................................................................................................................. 168

Athlete Experiences .................................................................................................................. 168

Peer Interview Perspectives.................................................................................................. 169
The Athlete Interviews - The Athlete Perspective. .............................................................. 173
The After Action Review and The Turning Point. ............................................................... 180

RQ3: Team Culture Change ......................................................................................................... 186

Discussion and Implications......................................................................................................... 192

Evaluating Action Research Studies ............................................................................................ 203

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 208

xii
 Study Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 208

Summary of Significance ......................................................................................................... 210

Future Directions ...................................................................................................................... 214

Final Thoughts.......................................................................................................................... 217

References .................................................................................................................................... 218

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 247

Appendix A: Coach Demographic Questionnaire ........................................................................ 247

Appendix B: Athlete Demographic Questionnaire ...................................................................... 248

Appendix C: Coach Informed Letter of Consent ......................................................................... 249

Appendix D: Athlete Informed Letter of Consent........................................................................ 252

Appendix E: Critical Friend Informed Letter of Consent ............................................................ 254

Appendix F: Sample List of Summer Learning Session .............................................................. 256

Appendix G: Sample Solution-Focused Workshop ..................................................................... 257

Appendix H: Retreat Agenda ....................................................................................................... 258

Appendix I: Solution Focus Transcript Elements ........................................................................ 262

Appendix J: Peer Discussions ...................................................................................................... 263

Appendix K: Measure of Actualizing Potential (MAP) ............................................................... 264

Appendix L: Sample Athlete Interview (1) for AC ...................................................................... 268

Appendix M: Sample Athlete Interview for (2) AC..................................................................... 269

Appendix N: Media Discourse Notes........................................................................................... 270

Appendix O: Revised Leadership Scale for Sport (RLSS; for athletes and coaches) .................. 274

Appendix P: Sample Athlete Interview (3) for AC ...................................................................... 276

Appendix Q: Sample Athlete Interview (4) for AC ..................................................................... 277

Appendix R: Month-by-Month Scaling Summary of HC ............................................................ 278

xiii
Appendix S: List of Abbreviations............................................................................................... 281

Appendix T ................................................................................................................................... 283

xiv
 List of Tables

TABLE 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 76
TABLE 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 132
TABLE 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 148

xv
 List of Figures

FIGURE 1. .................................................................................................................................... 82
FIGURE 2. .................................................................................................................................. 145
FIGURE 3. .................................................................................................................................. 164

xvi
 List of Appendices

APPENDIX A: COACH DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE............................................... 247

APPENDIX B: ATHLETE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................... 248
APPENDIX C: COACH INFORMED LETTER OF CONSENT ............................................... 249
APPENDIX D: ATHLETE INFORMED LETTER OF CONSENT ........................................... 252
APPENDIX E: CRITICAL FRIEND INFORMED LETTER OF CONSENT ........................... 254
APPENDIX F: SAMPLE LIST OF SUMMER LEARNING SESSION .................................... 256
APPENDIX G: SAMPLE SOLUTION-FOCUSED WORKSHOP ............................................ 257
APPENDIX H: RETREAT AGENDA ........................................................................................ 258
APPENDIX I: SOLUTION FOCUS TRANSCRIPT ELEMENTS ............................................ 262
APPENDIX J: PEER DISCUSSIONS ......................................................................................... 263
APPENDIX K: MEASURE OF ACTUALIZING POTENTIAL (MAP) ................................... 264
APPENDIX L: SAMPLE ATHLETE INTERVIEW (1) FOR AC.............................................. 268
APPENDIX M: SAMPLE ATHLETE INTERVIEW FOR (2) AC............................................. 269
APPENDIX N: MEDIA DISCOURSE NOTES .......................................................................... 270
APPENDIX O: REVISED LEADERSHIP SCALE FOR SPORT .............................................. 274
APPENDIX Q: SAMPLE ATHLETE INTERVIEW (4) FOR AC ............................................. 277
APPENDIX R: MONTH-BY-MONTH SCALING SUMMARY OF HC .................................. 278
APPENDIX S: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. 281
APPENDIX T: ETHICS APPROVAL LETTER......................................................................... 283

xvii
 CHAPTER ONE

“All flourishing is mutual”

(Kimmerer, 2013, p.21)

I invite you, the reader, to join me, the doctoral student, the action researcher, the

solution-focused coach, on a journey of personal and collective discoveries, transformed

practices, and hope. This was not a solitary journey. I was joined by coaches and athletes of a

interuniversity women’s sport team, over the course of an entire season. Together, we mapped

our course, explored, struggled, invented, challenged each other, persevered and ultimately

discovered new ways of understanding, being, and doing that are unique to action research.

Our story takes shape, like many stories, in multiple contexts. The setting in which our

work takes place is the familiar, local, and collectively experienced conditions shared by 14

female interuniversity athletes, one head coach, three assistant coaches, and myself. As a team, at

a large university, in similarly large athletic department, we set out to redefine our team culture

and the tacit discourses that dominate elite sport practice through an action research (AR) project.

The second context shaping our story, the belief that sport inherently and implicitly imparts

generative personal and collective attributes, is more global, pervasive; and because context is

regarded as a pivotal condition shaping mental development (Mattingly, Lutkehaus, & Thorpe,

2008), it is fundamental to our story. Some call these inherent beliefs the ‘great sport myth’

[(GSM), Coakley, 2015].

However, trying to change the GSM is no easy task, as it “consistently undermines critical

discussion and research on the culture and social organization of sports” (Coakley, 2015, p.445).

According to researchers, our sport environments currently function with a coach-driven

approach, where the coach holds the power and control, and for the most part, that power and

1
 2

control are unquestioned (Brake, 2012; Bridges, Cruz, & Mountjoy, 2010; Cushion & Jones,

2006; Kerr & Stirling, 2008; Stirling, Bridges, Cruz, & Mountjoy, 2010). These coaching

practices are shaped primarily by tradition, circumstance, and external authority (Nelson et al.,

2014); they dominate sport discourse and enable as well as normalize the role of coach as

authoritative disciplinarian while the athletes are expected to be compliant and docile (Avner,

2014). Not surprisingly, this model, where athletes are objectified and treated instrumentally,

creates personal and performance-related problems (Denison, Mills, & Jones, 2013; Mann,

Grana, Indelicato, O’Neil, & George, 2008). Therefore, a key question from a practical

perspective is which tools and skills do coaches need to change these practices and which

theoretical framework might support such an intervention?

Because sport is conceived of as a communicative phenomenon, whereby the execution of

sport depends upon communication and language habits for performance, interpersonal

relationships and transmission of dominant discourses (Kassing et al., 2004; Yandall, 2014), I am

suggesting that the use of a humanistic model of coach learning and development - which is

linguistic in nature - can provide a practical and philosophical framework for coach

communication and athlete self-actualization.

In the remainder of this chapter, I first offer a brief description of my AR orientation as

well as a brief history of AR practice, since it provides the skeleton upon which the project was

built both theoretically and practically. Following this section is a more detailed explanation of

sport culture (context) and how it problematizes coach communication. Once I have clarified the

problem, I propose my response and rationale in greater depth, along with a brief explanation of

the theoretical frameworks that support my understanding. Finally, I define my study’s purpose

and research questions.

2
 3

Research Orientation

‘I have loved questions all my life, in different ways. I've loved them out of curiosity
and I've loved them out of the hunger for good conversations and I've loved them out
of desperation. I've turned to questions the way a cliff climber turns to the next,
almost invisible hand-hold and toe-hold on a sheer cliff face. When heartbroken by
love's failures, when bewildered and shocked by the world’s violence, what comes to
me are two things: First, the deep well of tears. But next, the need to understand.
What happened? How? What was my part in it? What must I now do? What can I?’
Jane Hirshfield, August 1, 2016

Jane Hirshfield is a distinguished and decorated poet, essayist and translator, and every

line of her short essay, Living By Questions, which appeared on the Daily Good website

(http://www.dailygood.org/story/1351/living-by-questions/) on August 1st, 2016, resonated with

me; so much so, that I knew a piece of it would make its way into my work because I too love

questions. Perhaps, researchers in general are of a sort who love questions – I like to think so.

I love questions so much that I became a solution-focused (SF) coach, someone who asks

questions for living; and although I became a SF coach without knowing the theoretical history, I

was not surprised to learn through the research process that it stems from a humanist and

interpretivist background. The philosophical principles of humanism, often described as a

philosophy of dialogue and what it means to be fully human (Moss, 2001) are consistent with

principles of coaching, which emphasize self-actualization (Stober, 2006), a foundational element

of humanism (Ivtzan, Garner, Bernard, Sekhon, & Hart, 2013). But, what I find most compelling

is how AR complements, so beautifully, the values of humanistic and coaching frameworks that

guide this study. At the heart of AR, is the quality of relationships that are created through

partnership and participation; it is actionable and acknowledges the self as instrumental in the

change process and it contributes to the flourishing of people and communities beyond the

immediate research context (Bradbury, 2010).

3
 4

Perhaps because AR is characterized as autobiographical (Herr & Anderson, 2005) and is

fundamentally concerned with self-reflection and locating the self within the system of

relationships as well as, developing an understanding of the self and others (Bradbury, 2010,

2015), I sense a need to preface my work with this reflective introduction to set the tone and

nature of this effort. At the same time, it is equally important to acknowledge that I am a novice,

yet committed, action researcher. There were times when I could not distinguish between the SF

practice and the AR framework due to their practical and philosophical similarities. Most of time

I was thankful for that congruence; yet teasing them apart for the sake of the reader was like

asking which came first, the chicken or the egg, causing considerable existential angst. As a

result, this project oscillates between a more personal, first person perspective and a more formal,

neutral perspective that is commonly used in academic research.

Action Research

AR is about change, from large scale organizational change (French & Bell, 1973;

Stebbins, Valenzuala, & Coget, 2009), to sustainable practices meant to enhance the flourishing

of participants, and contribute to the creation of new systems of meaning which can be

“incorporated in the texts, rules, regulations, practices, procedures, and polices, that govern our

professional and community experience” (Stringer, 2014, p.55). In fact, AR is often considered a

strategy for using various theories and methods, including both quantitative and qualitative

methodologies (Bradbury, 2010) for the purpose of influencing democratic and social change

(Greenwood, 2015).

“Research that produces nothing but book will not suffice” (Lewin,1946, p.35).

Considered the founder of action research (Bradury, 2010), Lewin’s understanding of intergroup

relations and power helped to shape what is known as AR today. AR is an orientation toward

4
 5

research (H. Bradbury, personal communication, July 20, 2016), it is not a methodology, nor is it

a method (Greenwood, 2015). AR focuses more on the orientation toward knowledge creation,

which emerges when researchers and practitioners work reflexively and collaboratively in the

real world to accomplish common goals (Bradbury, 2010). Similarly, Stringer (2014) describes

AR as a flexible and practical set of procedures that are systematic, cyclical and solutions-

oriented, as well as participatory. These systematic and cyclical procedures (originally attributed

to Lewin (Herr & Anderson, 2005) are often depicted as a four-stage process involving, planning,

acting, observing, and reflecting (Tripp, 2005).

The earliest AR thinking, however, has been attributed to John Dewey due to his focus on

experiential learning and reflection (Bradbury, 2010; Maksimović, 2010; Stebbins, Valenzuela, &

Coget, 2009; Tripp, 2005); although the term action research is attributed to both John Collier, an

American anthropologist and Commissioner of Indian Affairs during the second world war, as

well as Kurt Lewin (Bradbury, 2015; Maksimović, 2010; Stebbins et al., 2009; Tripp, 2005). By

1948 though, there were already different classifications of AR including, diagnostic, participant,

empirical and even experimental (Stebbins et al., 2009). A particularly noted form of AR, known

as participatory action research (PAR) is attributed to William Foote Whyte, and focuses on

organizational change, where members of the organization are active members of the research

team and action objectives are built into the research design from the beginning (Stebbins et al.,

2009). Interesting however, it has been suggested that the essential orientation of AR can be

traced back to the ancient Greeks, and their “insistence that knowledge moves toward wisdom

and ethical action (phronesis)” (Bradbury, 2015, p.5).

Significantly, Lewin is linked conceptually to Bateson, whom I refer to later in this

proposal, as a strong influencer of solution-focused practice, and both are linked to AR through

general systems theory and evolutionary theory (Greenwood, 2015). Bateson and Lewin both

5
 6

believed that the world is interdependent and the key to understanding behaviour requires

understanding the system of which that behaviour is a part. Therefore, changing behaviour must

take into account the overarching system (Greenwood, 2015) – no individual exists outside of a

system. For me, these links are an essential element of my research. This project has always been,

about changing the system (culture/discourse) in which coaches coach and athletes participate.

Influencing change from the inside out is a core guiding principle.

In the newest edition of The Sage Handbook of Action Research, Bradbury (2015)

provides the following definition of AR, “Action research is a democratic and participative

orientation to knowledge creation: it brings together action and reflection, theory and practice in

the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern” (p.1). Bradbury suggests that AR

researchers bring certain assumptions to their research because the nature of life and power

demand these assumptions. For example, I assume that a democratic, participative approach to

inquiry, guided by humanistic values and practice, can change the traditional hegemony of sport

coaching prevalent in sport practice today. And, consistent with both AR and SF practice, is the

understanding that individuals (or communities, or organizations, or teams) are the experts of

their own experience and we have to assume that they have the resources and capabilities to

develop and shape their own solutions. As Bradbury says, “we need more citizens capable of

developing practical knowledge” (p.2). As a SF coach/researcher, I argue that the principles of SF

coaching and the complementary processes of AR, can help citizens (participants) not only

cultivate practical, useful, knowledge but can help to increase understanding (and perhaps even

wisdom) that emerges alongside self-actualization. If asked, “what difference would you have

your work make?” (Bradbury, 2010), I would answer that I hope that our work challenges the

embedded sport discourse of our current system and that it demonstrates the value and

importance of synergistic, SF language.

6
 7

Sport Culture and the Problem

Culture and discourse are inseparable. Understanding how culture shapes individuals is

called cultural psychology (Bruner, 1990) and it concerns itself with the connection between

narrative and meaning making, and the processes by which those meanings are established within

community. The narratives or discourses of a culture help to explain human behaviour because in

order for humans to act they need to understand how they feel about those actions and how their

actions make sense or not. Cultural discourses/narratives provide a structure and mediate

experience (Mattingly, Lutkehaus, & Throop, 2008). Mattingly and colleagues liken culture to a

story we enter that has already begun and will continue after we leave. The language used in the

telling of story helps us to negotiate our role, to make sense of the plot and storyline and provides

the metaphors and themes that guide our contributions.

Therefore, considering the entrenched discourse of the GSM (Coakley, 2015), it is

perhaps understandable how such a powerful narrative influences behaviour of sport coaches.

Researchers describe sport coaches as powerful socializing agents of their athletes (Cushion,

2014) whose influence often extends outside of the boundaries of the sport context and has a

wide range of psycho-social outcomes (Stirling & Kerr, 2009). In addition, there is a growing

body of evidence used by researchers to warn of the profound and long-term impact that

potentially harmful coach behaviours have on athletes (Burke, 1999; Kerr & Stirling, 2012).

Researchers have posited many hypotheses in their attempt to account for these problematic

coaching behaviours, including the disconnect between coach philosophy and coach behaviour

(McCallister, Blinde, & Weiss, 2000; Sheridan, 2006), the often unquestioned power and

authority of the coach (Cushion & Jones, 2006; Kerr & Stirling, 2012), the socialization of

coaches into positions of authority and control (Cushion & Nelson, 2013; Nelson, Cushion,

Potrac, & Groom, 2014), the perception that athletes sometimes require the autocratic discipline

7
 8

and expertise of the coach (McMorris & Hale, 2006), and the normalization of problematic

behaviours within sport culture (Cook & Kerr, 2015; Kerr & Stirling, 2012); however very few

have questioned the role of language and discourse and it’s connection to problems within sport

cultures.

Researchers suggest that coaches are embedded in a social system depicted as a complex

web of expectations, relationships and stakeholders (Côté & Gilbert, 2009), where poor coaching

behaviours are often the result of socialization and normalization (Cook & Kerr, 2015; Kerr &

Stirling, 2012; Nelson et al., 2014). Yet, other researchers advise that at least part of the problem

is our poor conceptualization of coach effectiveness (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Cushion & Nelson,

2013; Gilbert & Côté, 2013; Trudel, Gilbert, &Werthner, 2010). Because sport functions,

traditionally (and generally), as a competitive environment, results are a constitutive element

(Moen & Federici, 2013) that constrains our perceptions of success, often reducing them to

win/loss records (Kidman & Lombardo, 2010). Consequently, there is confusion regarding the

conceptualization and definition of coaching effectiveness (Coté & Gilbert, 2009), a term that is

regularly used interchangeably with success, expertise (Ford, Coughlan, & Williams, 2009) and

competence (Côté, 2006).

As a result, coaching effectiveness is often evaluated with regard to athlete success, which

is to say, winning (Ford et al., 2009). Additionally, within the traditional model of coach

effectiveness, athletes are seen as products that coaches develop (Côté & Sedgewick, 2003).

Athletes are often disempowered and their actions controlled by coaches even outside the sport

environment (Kidman, 2001, 2005); further, they may be manipulated as variables (Smoll &

Smith, 2006) and perceived as sometimes requiring the autocratic discipline and expertise of the

coach (McMorris & Hale, 2006).

8
 9

As coach learning and efficacy are often intertwined (Cushion et al., 2010), it is perhaps

not surprising researchers generally agree that current coaching learning programs are relatively

ineffective when it comes to meeting the complex needs, preferences and demands of coach

learning (Trudel et al., 2010). In fact, an evaluation study of a large-scale coaching education

program indicated no change in the coach’s knowledge and that the course actually seemed to

reinforce the coach’s personal manner of coaching (Gilbert & Trudel,1999). This, according to

Cushion and colleagues (2010) almost a decade later, is not uncommon.

Neither is it uncommon to see a disconnect between coach behaviour and coach

philosophy, which is also often cited as a contributing factor to poor coaching practices

(McCallister, et al., 2000; Sheridan, 2006). To the extent that coaches have difficulty controlling

their emotions and actions (Gelston, 2005; Gervis & Dunn, 2004), commonly shout, belittle, and

humiliate their athletes (Gervis & Dunn, 2004; Giges, Petitpas, & Vernacchia, 2004; Stirling,

Bridges, Cruz, & Mountjoy, 2010), even order their athletes to injure opponents (Gelston, 2005),

and subsequently claim to be unaware of the impact of such behaviours (Sheridan, 2006), is at the

very least, concerning.

When we consider that culture contributes to the institutionalization of norms, and how

those institutions subsequently create our systems of exchange, information, obligations, even

goods and services; then we can also recognize how these systems and institutions shape identity,

especially within sport of the coach and the athlete. Then it is not difficult to understand why

researchers report that coaches are socialized into these behaviours, and in particular, into

positions of authority and control (Cushion & Nelson, 2013; Giges et al., 2004; Nelson et al.,

2014) that perpetuate these types of behaviours (Sheridan, 2006) and have even normalized them

within sport (Cook & Kerr, 2015; Kerr & Stirling, 2012). Indeed, Cushion and colleagues (2014)

suggest that current coaching practices are founded on “tradition, circumstance and external

9
 10

authority” (p.514). They also report that this authoritarian, prescriptive model is so embedded in

sport that frameworks which challenge it, such as athlete-centered or person-centered coaching,

are used only to give the illusion of collaboration with athletes to secure their buy-in to the

coach’s agenda (Cushion et al., 2014). Several researchers go as far as to suggest that our coach-

centered system contributes to the normalization of abuse of athletes by their coaches (Bolter,

2010; Cook & Kerr, 2015; Gervis, 2010; Kerr & Stirling, 2012).

In summary, sport culture perpetuates systems where coaches are perceived as experts and

their authority rarely challenged, in spite of their questionable behaviours. Within this system,

athletes are conditioned to be compliant, submissive and appreciative regardless of how they are

treated. While these discourses themselves are problematic, the challenge facing researchers is to

understand what tools and skills coaches need to learn, at a very practical level, to communicate

in a manner that consistently facilitates positive personal and athlete development (Cushion et al.,

2010), rather than false ideals of the GSM that keep us trapped in cycles of harm and abuse.

Response and Philosophical Framework

Through this intervention study, I am recommending a humanistically-based intervention

program for coach learning and development as one way to address the challenges facing coach

educators. Although some researchers believe there is a trend toward a more humanistic approach

to sport coaching (Cassidy, 2010), the concept is rarely defined, and often it is used in

conjunction with or interchangeably with holistic or athlete-centered coaching practices (Cassidy,

2010). In fact, several researchers, including Cushion and Nelson (2013), and Gearity and Murray

(2011), have proposed that research strategies typical of holistic approaches are needed to study

coach effectiveness and learning. Such approaches would encourage researchers to study coach

learning and effectiveness as a complementary process to athlete development, and as a way of

10
 11

being in the sport world with the athlete. Instead of segmenting athletes and coaches into

psychological, cognitive or behavioural units of observation, such an approach implies that each

must be approached as a whole person, considering physical, emotional, social, spiritual and

cognitive needs with respect to development (Kidman & Hanrahan, 2010).

The model I suggest is known as solution-focused coaching (SFC), which is considered to

be both linguistic and strategic (Bauserman & Rule, 1995) as well as, dialogic and conversational

(Fish, 2011). According to this model, language and conversation are critical processes through

which cultural norms and practices are manifested (Mean & Halone, 2010). Therefore, working

together to change the communication practices of coaches might help to transform not only the

culture of a sport, but have implications for coaching practice and education in general.

At a practical level, this humanistic model is a person-centered approach concerned with

an individual’s actualizing potential (considered to be present in everyone) which is naturally

generative (Polkinghorne, 2001). The idea is that a fully self-actualizing, functional person

(coach or athlete) is in a state of congruence, where their self-concept matches their actualizing

tendency and their humanness is expressed through the inherent movement toward self-

actualization - not necessarily the achievement of it (Polkinghorne, 2001). This type of person-

centered approach, is associated with Carl Rogers (1902-1987), and best represents the

humanistic model which states that the essential elements of that model are: celebration of the

individual; holistic development; development through self-actualization and personal

experience; empathetic, non-judgmental care and respect for the client (athlete); and the belief

that the client (athlete) can set his/her own goals, discover his/her own insights and find his/her

own path to fulfillment (Hill, 2001). As a result, it is thought that this self-actualizing potential

contributes to functional behaviour which attempts to satisfy other needs including interpersonal

relationships. Significantly, self-actualization has a positive correlation to measures of

11
 12

psychological adjustment and is negatively correlated to measures of psychopathology (Ivtzan,

Gardner, Bernard, Sekhon, & Hart, 2013).

Theoretical Frameworks

I use three theoretical frameworks to guide my interpretation of methodological, results

and iterative processes: critical humanistic psychology, critical discourse psychology, and

cultural psychology. A brief description of each, with regard to their usefulness within the sport

context and this study is provided below.

Critical Humanistic Psychology

According to Hill (2001), humanistic psychology emphasizes meaning, experience and

human nature and, as such is, more representative of the philosophical roots of psychology. She

describes how this humanistic model influences sport psychology in this manner:

This philosophy views sport as an expression of the human spirit. It is more concerned

with the sport experience as a meaningful process than an outcome. Humanistic views of

sport emphasize the game more as a path toward fulfillment, joy, and the playful

expression of human happiness than as a path to self-aggrandizement, winning at all

costs, or financial betterment. Balance is sought between the instrumental and expressive

aspects of the game, as well as a prioritization of quality-of-life issues, self-fulfillment,

and liberation of the individual spirit ahead of trophies, fame and superiority over one’s

opponents. (p.121)

Essentially, Hill (2001) submits that the aim of a coach using a humanistic approach is to

enhance the self-actualizing potential of athletes by helping to recognize that internal changes to

12
 13

perceptions of self, self-confidence, self-competence, and self-referencing produce external

changes.

Similar to humanistic psychologists, critical psychologists investigate what it means to be

human and do this with a particular emphasis on control, surveillance, and power (Teo, 2015).

Parker (2015) insists that an important principle of critical psychology is the concern of “how we

overcome the separation between those who think they know best and those upon whom the

supposedly correct knowledge is often imposed” (p.5). Within the context of sport coaching, few

would argue that sport psychology skills are not essential coaching skills (Gould, Hodge,

Peterson, & Petlichkoff, 1987). Attitude, motivation and concentration are psychological skills

that coaches influence (Gould et al., 1987). Therefore, because this study involves teaching sport

coaches a psychological intervention, it is imperative that implications from a critical perspective

are considered, to avoid perpetuating a coach-centered culture of authoritative expertise, or even

a sport psychologist expertise on my part.

Critical Discourse Theory

Ulrich (2003) claims that critical systems theory is better conceptualized as a form of

critical discourse because it must involve people as citizens, and “as citizens we are all part of

diverse social systems and fulfill in these different systems various roles of profession, private

and public kind, which together offer a great variety of discursive chances” (p.331). He goes on

to suggest that what matters in these social systems are the opportunities to exchange ideas, learn

and express concerns, which can lead to emancipation and a civil society.

Discursive approaches to psychology were influenced in part by Wittgensteinian

philosophy (as was the philosophy that informs the intervention of this study) and arose alongside

critical psychology (Wetherell, 2015). Wetherell argues that “discourse builds worlds and it

13
 14

builds minds” (p.316). For researchers who study discourse, language is “performative and

constitutive” (p.316) and they are concerned with what discourse accomplishes, including the

politics of representation of a particular culture and the ways in which those representations are

made as well as, who is empowered and/or disempowered. The research becomes critical when it

explores and reveals how “power, privilege, exclusion and marginalization” (Wetherell, 2015,

p.320) are normalized. Therefore, analysis can help to reveal unconscious practices “which are

implicit, not articulated, forceful, repetitive, untroubled, repressive of alternatives and automatic”

(p.320).

As mentioned earlier, sport is often described as a messy, complex system based on

traditions of external authority, power and dominance (Nelson et al., 2014; Wiese-Bjornstal,

2010). Fundamentally then, investigating how the various participants may or may not contribute

to the unconscious and automatic discourses of the sport system, seems a worthwhile endeavour.

Cultural Psychology

Within cultural psychology perspectives language and culture cannot be conceptually

independent because it is believed that culture is the channel of language and language the

instrument of culture (Bakhurst &Shanker, 2015). Bruner, a humanistic psychologist recognized

as the most influential proponent of cultural psychology (Bakhurst &Shanker, 2015; Geertz,

2001) believed that language precedes action and that both language and culture are determinants

of self-narrative processes. In other words, culture forms context, it shapes how we think, feel

and behave (Paufler & Amerien-Beardsley, 2015).

Importantly, the discourses or narratives of a culture provide the tools needed for making

sense of behaviours and even how we are meant to assimilate problems or crises (Bruner, 1990).

Since each culture typically has its own ‘folk psychology’ - narratives and discourses that

14
 15

become institutionalized - systems and structures are built around these folk psychologies that

endorse and preserve them (1990).

Cultural psychology provides a theoretical framework that not only supports my

humanistic philosophical approach, but it offers a means of better understanding the

institutionalized discourses of sport and the GSM. It may also provide the mechanism for helping

me to understand and/or recognize the self-actualizing processes of the athletes through the

evolution of their personal narratives/discourses over the course of the study.

Study Aims

This project reflects two inter-related aims. As an AR project, the participants are

considered co-researchers and capable of determining their project purpose. Both coaches and

athletes expressed that they wanted to change the culture of the team, from negative to positive.

From my perspective, this aim perfectly complemented my own; which was to assess the

influence of a humanistically-based coaching intervention on the communication behaviours of

coaches and the resultant self-actualization processes of athletes. By changing the language and

communication practices of the coaches, we may interrupt the dominant sport discourse and thus

have an opportunity to enhance the culture. By changing the discourse of coaches, the culture of

the team may improve and subsequently the self-actualizing processes of the athletes may be

facilitated as well.

Research Questions

‘Everything flows from and through the research questions’ (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009,

p.129). Researchers must justify their methodological and method choices as the best means of

reflecting their research questions and to provide a framework from which others may be able to

assess the quality of the work (Smith & Heshusius, 1985). In other words, the methodologies and

15
 16

methods must contribute logically to the research process and data collection that the research

question directs. Creswell (2013) advances the notion that the research question “foreshadows the

approach to inquiry” (p.138). Due to my position as an action researcher I began this project, as

recommended, with a question that focused on aiming to improve a situation (Bradbury, 2015;

McNiff & Whitehead, 2009). Therefore, there were three research questions:

1. Do solution-focused coaching skills improve the communication skills/behaviours of the

coaches? Are dominant coaching discourses interrupted? If so, how do these changes

occur?

2. Does solution-focused communication influence the self-actualizing processes of these

athletes?

3. Does the intervention appear to change team culture, and if so, in what ways?

Rationale

Researchers refer to communication competence as a form of social literacy, suggesting

there is a relationship between an individual’s abilities to communicate and her or his ability to

function in society (Wiemann & Backlund, 1980). Additionally, Wiemann and Backlund describe

communication as an understanding and awareness that occurs when people are interacting. Not

surprisingly, then, sport researchers have presented data that reveal the importance of coach

communication skills in the development of positive coach-athlete relationships. These studies

point to coach communication as the determining feature of the quality of the coach-athlete

relationship (Moen & Kvalsund, 2013). Moreover, since the nature of the coach-athlete

relationship is considered a critical element of athlete development (Coté, Brunner, Erickson,

Strachan, & Fraser-Thomas, 2010), by enhancing coach communication competence, we should

be able to positively influence the self-actualizing potentials (development) of athletes.

16
 17

As mentioned earlier, the proposed model is considered both linguistic and strategic in

nature (Bauserman & Rule, 1995; Fish, 2011). The practitioner uses language and distinct

language tools/skills as a strategy to engage with athletes and help them to identify their own

strategies and motivations to achieve identified goals – their own self-actualizing path. Therefore,

SF communication is conceptualized as dialogic and conversational (Fish, 2011); it is about

communication between the coach and the athlete. Of relevance to my study is the notion that this

model provides both a set of communicative skills (rules) that can be applied to a variety of

relationships and contexts as well as assumptions that guide the use and application of these

skills, therefore meeting cognitive and behavioural aspects of communicative competence.

Importantly, this model is also considered naturally reflective (Grant, Hodge, Peterson, &

Petlichkoff, 2012). Because the model revolves around question asking (Bannink, 2007), it

requires the question asker (the coach) and athlete to be able to reflect on past and current

experiences to set future goals and strategies to reach those goals. In the world of sport coaching,

reflection is considered a valuable component of coach learning and effectiveness (Dixon, Lee, &

Ghaye, 2013; Trudel et al., 2010), yet an extremely difficult skill to teach to coaches (Cushion et

al., 2010). Therefore, the proposed model can also be seen to enhance coach learning. Finally,

researchers have proposed that this humanistic model enhances autonomy (Visser, 2012),

collaboration (O’Hanlon, 1998), relationships (Onyett, 2009) and feedback mechanisms (Visser,

2012), which are all measures of coach leadership behaviours in the sport context (Jambor &

Zhang, 1997).

Significantly, Nelson and colleagues (2014) suggest that the humanistic approach

provides a model (when well theorized) that could change coach learning and development as

well as the power imbalance currently supported by coach development and sport systems. They

do however, express that such an approach is “choosing to fight against the existing dominant

17
 18

discourse and its’ associated practices and expectations” (p.526). By helping coaches to develop

communication skills that support and enhance personal and athlete self-actualization, the

concept of athlete development and coach efficacy may shift toward a noticeably humanistic

philosophy, which approaches sport as an expression of the human spirit and is more concerned

with the process as a meaningful path of self-development (Hill, 2001).

Operational Definitions

For the purpose of this study, self-actualization is considered “as an individual’s quest to

be creative, to grow, to acquire knowledge, and to develop one’s abilities” (Ivtzan, Gardner,

Bernard, Sekhon, & Hart, 2013, p.120 ), while self-actualizing tendencies are those that guide

athletes toward higher functioning and personal fulfillment through the ability to set their own

goals, seek their own path to fulfillment, find their own insights and control their own

interventions (Hill, 2001).

Athlete development is conceptualized as positive self-actualizing tendencies regardless

of athletic skill.

Regarding coach development, the same definition of self-actualization and the same

tendencies are used. Coach effectiveness is conceptualized in this study as the ability of the

coach to enhance the self-actualizing tendencies of their athletes and coach learning is

conceptualized as behavioural change (Bouton, 2000) that is measured by communication

competency and leadership behaviours.

Throughout this document, the term conversation is used to indicate what researchers

often refer to as interviews. From a humanistic, solution-focused coaching model, the term

conversation is preferred because it better reflects equality with regard to power and expertise.

18
 19

Finally, the term client is used throughout the literature review when referencing the

therapeutic and psychological philosophies and models from which this humanistic coaching

intervention has evolved; however, once I apply the model to sport coaches, I use the term

athlete.

19
 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The review of literature provides a comprehensive, yet concise, synthesis and analysis of

research considered relevant to nature of this project. I attempt to provide the reader with an

understanding of the concepts and theories that provide a framework for the research questions,

and help to illustrate where and how this study contributes to an expanded, or even new way of

understanding the value of improved coaching communication skills for sport coaches – and

more specifically, solution-focused communication skills.

The literature review can be conceptualized as having two sections. The first is a review

of the theoretical literature that informs this work. The second is a review of the literature that

informs my understanding of the problem of coach communication and how it impacts athletes.

In the first section, I begin with a brief review of humanistic psychology, which provides

the basic structure and philosophy from which I work. I then present an explanation of discourse

as told through the lens of cultural psychology. Following this explication, I describe self-

actualization and self-enhancement theory. At this point, I offer a theoretical and practical

description of the SF approach as a natural extension and evolution of humanistic psychology,

and which aims are to enhance an individual’s self-actualizing tendencies.

In the second section, I begin by presenting research that positions sport culture as the

precipitating factor that contributes to ongoing systematic discourses of power in sport. This is

followed by a review of coach effectiveness and then, coach learning and development. These

sections illustrate, first, how our positivistic approach to sport supports and frames our

understanding and language around what it means to be an effective coach and as an extension,

how coach learning and development programs have traditionally been designed to produce

20
 21

effective coaches. Finally, I introduce the literature which supports the application of a

humanistic coaching model which I proposed may be useful in the sport context, as well as how

and why this is important for athletes. I end this chapter with a review of my research questions.

Humanistic Psychology

Although it is beyond the scope of this section to provide a detailed history of humanistic

psychology, a brief description of its evolutionary path and primary influencers is useful because

it provides the historical framework for the intervention of choice in the proposed study.

From its beginning, the humanistic psychology movement has stressed a scientific

understanding of what it means to be fully human, while humanistic psychologies seek ways that

might help individuals to reach their full humanness (Moss, 2001). The essence of humanistic

psychology philosophy evolved from the 1940s through to the 1970s, as a model intending to

recalibrate the reductionist approach to psychology and advance a psychology that was person-

centered, growth-oriented and holistic (Gordon, 2012). However, researchers suggest (Moss,

2001) that humanistic philosophy can be seen in classical Greek, Christian and Renaissance

philosophies. Formal influences are attributed to the following individuals: Husserl (1859-1938),

Binswanger (1881-1966), Boss (1903-1990), Buber (1878-1965), Adler (1870-1937), Maslow

(1908-1970), Rogers (1902-1987), and Perls (1893-1970). Other philosophers/researchers with

strong humanistic psychology contributions include Wittgenstein (1889-1951) and Dilthey

(1894-1977) (Moss, 2001). However, it was in 1973 that Misiak and Sexton first described

humanistic psychology as a complete, systematic movement (Moss, 2001) despite the American

Association for Humanistic Psychology’s creation in 1962 and the Journal of Humanistic

Psychology’s first publication in 1961 (Taylor & Martin 2001).

 22

At a practical level, humanistic psychology is a person-centered approach concerned with

an individual’s actualizing potential (considered to be present in everyone) which is naturally

generative (Polkinghorne, 2001; Rogers, 1959). The idea is that fully self-actualizing, functional

people are in a state of congruence, where their self-concept matches their actualizing tendency

and their humanness is expressed through the inherent movement toward self-actualization - not

necessarily the achievement of it (Polkinghorne, 2001; Rogers, 1959). This person-centered

approach is most often associated with Carl Rogers, as it best represents the humanistic model

and essential elements of that model including: celebration of the individual, holistic

development, development through actualizing, self-actualizing and personal experiences,

empathy, non-judgmental care and respect for the client, and the belief that clients can set their

own goals, discover their own insights and find their own path to fulfillment (Hill, 2001; Rogers,

1959).

A more explicit definition of humanistic psychology is the scientific study of behaviour,

experience and intentionality, with an emphasis on factors that influence self-actualization and

growth (Krippner, 2001). Humanistic psychology has however, been criticized by mainstream

psychology for inadequate evaluative frameworks (Krippner, 2001) - accusations that fuel a

fierce philosophical/methodological debate amongst humanistic researchers. For example, Wertz

(2001) accused modern psychology, especially behavourists, of trying to make psychology a

natural science by attributing principles developed for research on nonhuman animals to humans.

Along with many other humanists (Rogers, 1959), Wertz asserted that this type of psychology is

dehumanizing. It has been said that behaviourists are focused on external stimuli, cognitive

researchers are focused on thinking, and humanists are concerned with the human being

holistically (Hill, 2001). In fact, researchers suggest that humanistic psychologists have

rehumanized psychology (Krippner, 2001).

 23

Many humanists believe that Maslow is the father of positive psychology due to his

humanistic emphasis on generative development as opposed to pathology, and noting, in

particular, that the last chapter of Maslow’s Motivation and Personality was titled “Toward a

Positive Psychology” (Lyons, 2001; Martin 2001). Yet, some humanists go so far as to accuse the

positive psychology movement of usurping an already established territory (Taylor & Martin,

2001). In addition, humanists assert that the popularity of the positive psychology movement

over the humanistic model is due largely to the positivistic approach embraced by positive

psychology and revered by the scientific community (Taylor & Martin, 2001; Wertz, 2001).

However, it remains that humanistic psychology is a positive psychology, in that its focus

concerns understanding psychological health - a focus shared by positive psychologists

(Lyons,1996, 2001).

Another criticism of humanistic psychology is the belief that its focus is of a self-centered

nature and collective concerns for well-being are minimized (Lyons, 2001). However, Maslow is

said to have written about humanistic psychology as a means of not only helping individuals self-

actualize, but of helping those individuals with the acknowledgement that they are social beings

and members of society (Lyons, 1996, 2001). Lyons reported that Maslow wrote extensively

about the elements of a good society, which is growth promoting versus growth inhibiting, and

meets the basic need satisfactions of all members. Similarly, Rogers (1959) proposed that fully

functional, self-actualizing individuals are dependent upon the positive regard of others and a

self-awareness that allows them to remain open and adaptable to experience. Importantly then,

humanistic psychologists are committed to fostering social responsibility and change (Lyons,

1996, 2001; Prilleltensky, 1996).

Significantly, Polkinghorne (2001) asserted that the voices of individuals or their

tendency toward positive growth, can be suffocated by social systems that are enforced by
 24

powerful people in their life. Thus, there is an urgent need for an emancipatory, humanistic

psychology (Prilleltensky, 1996) where, in my case, athletes and coaches are freed from socially

imposed notions of who they are, who their best self is, or what that best self must do. Instead,

they are encouraged to discover the voice of their own self-actualizing potential. Twenty years

ago, Lyons (1996) wrote, “There is an urgent need to develop and to apply psychological

knowledge to problems at institutional levels, at cultural levels and at public policy levels”

(p.302). Similarly, Prilleltensky (1996) wrote, “Psychology needs an emancipatory orientation as

much as society needs an emancipatory psychology” (p.307).

Researchers also believe there is a need for psychology to become more socially relevant,

with some asserting that there is a moral imperative for this evolution due to the need for

psychological knowledge and principles that can be applied in large contexts (Lyons, 2001).

Within the context of critical humanistic psychology, emancipation is considered a prerequisite

for the “good” life and “good” society humanists deem necessary for self-actualizing potential

(Lyons, 2001; Prilleltensky, 1996). “The good society cannot be ignored while promoting the

good life. Good cannot thrive in bad societies” (Prilleltensky, 1996, p.309). The good society is

one in which each person is respected as an end, not a means, and has the liberty to pursue his or

her own notion of the good life (Ibid.). It is this concept of the good society and interpersonal

relationships which link humanists to systems or ecological theory, what Krippner (2001) called

ecopsychology, that is, psychology that takes into account the “ecological context of human life”

(p.297). Change must occur at both the micro (individual) and macro (societal) levels to ensure

that individuals are free to make their own choices, and that change is transformative (Lyons,

2001). Like Maslow, Prilleltensky (1996) proposed that good lives are dependent on good

societies and a good society relies on a just distribution of power because lives are deeply

affected by the allocation of power within our families, work environments, schools and
 25

government. I would add sport. He also suggested that it is easier to identify intimate

relationships that are disempowering than it is to identify the disempowerment of social policies.

Therefore, it is imperative that we examine how the discourses embedded in sport either facilitate

or impede the liberation of coaches and athletes. One contemporary approach, described in a

subsequent section, is informed by humanistic psychology and is known as solution-focused

practice.

Self-Actualization

Self-actualization (SA), as mentioned, is a key tenet of humanistic psychology,

originating as the higher order need in Maslow’s theory of motivation (Ivtzan, Gardner, Bernard,

Sekhon, & Hart, 2013; Maslow, 1943; Moss, 2001). In fact, Maslow is attributed as being the

single most influential person with regards to humanistic psychology and as such the theory of

self-actualization is considered foundational to the movement (Koltko-Rivera, 2006; Moss,

2001). Simply, self-actualizing theory is defined as “an individual’s expression of their full

potential and a desire for self-fulfillment” (Ivtzan et al., 2013, p.119). In other words, it is a

person’s pursuit of creativity, growth, insight and development, motivated intrinsically (Ivtzan et

al., 2013). Maslow (1962) believed that the journey toward self-actualization requires courage,

risk taking, and commitment; and as a result of this journey, the individual develops more

profound and healthier interpersonal relationships, as well as, being more autonomous and

empathic (Ivtzan et al., 2013). More accurately, Maslow preferred the term self-actualizing as

opposed to self-actualization because he considered it a lifelong process, not an accomplishment

(Ivtzan et al. 2013; Maslow, 1954; Polkinghorne, 2001).

However, Maslow’s theory is not without its’ critics. Some suggest that although SA may

be a valuable psychological concept, it is likely not a functionally distinct human need (Kenrick,
 26

Griskevicius, Neuber, & Schaller, 2010). Even Maslow himself apparently had doubts about SA

as a motivation, as is revealed in his later writings (Koltko-Rivera, 2001). Toward the end of his

career Maslow expanded his pyramid to include what he called self-transcendence (Venter, 2016)

because he realized that SA alone did not suffice to capture the optimally functioning human

being. Significantly, Maslow believed that a healthy personality included a point where the

individual is no longer dependent upon culture (context, environment) for self-reference, that the

individual is independent from the prescription of cultural forces. This is not to say that they are

estranged from culture, but that they are grounded in their own being and cognition with

successful (and appropriate) coping behaviours, a sense of mastery, effectiveness and competence

that allows them an undistorted identity (Venter, 2016). Interestingly, self-transcendent

individuals assume an expanded worldview that helps them to cultivate deeper meaning and

purpose in their life because they experience a connectedness to life beyond the culture in which

they live and work (Venter, 2016).

It is valuable to note that university students (the co-researchers in this project), who are

relatively early in the process of self-actualizing, may not yet be aware of their capabilities due to

pressures such as academics, friendships and their struggle for autonomy (Ivtzan et al., 2013) -

and within the context of this study, I will add, the pressures associated with being an

interuniversity athlete. Although, especially with college/university students, the very real value

of self-actualization is its’ correlation to intrinsic goals and overall well-being (Schmuck, Kasser,

& Ryan, 2000). One particular study with university graduate students (Compton, 2001)

indicated that psychological well-being can be conceptualized by self-actualizing tendencies:

self-enhancement through relationships, autonomy and a community focus. And, from a

personal-growth perspective, mental health is conceptualized as subjective well-being and a

stress-resistant personality (Compton et al., 1996). Personal growth perspectives take a

 27

developmental view of mental health with the aim being that the population is living at their full-

potential, while subjective well-being is equated with self-reported happiness and life

satisfaction. Finally, the stress-resistant personality views mental health as a variable that

enhances physical health (Compton, Smith, Cornish, & Qualls, 1996).

Solution-focused Approach

Solution-focused coaching (SFC) is a practice that is considered part of the solution-

focused approach family (Grant et al., 2012). What was originally known as solution-focused

brief therapy (SFBT), or solution-focused therapy (SFT) (Fish, 2014), has continued to evolve

and is now one of the top three most common interventions with family therapists in the U.S.

(Grant et al., 2012). The development of SFT is attributed to Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg

and colleagues, from the Brief Therapy Center in Milwaukee (Lewis & Osborne, 2004; Lipchik,

2002).

The model was strongly influenced by linguistic philosopher Wittgenstein (de Shazer,

Dolan, Korman, Trepper, McCollum, & Berg, 2007; Fish, 2014), as well as Milton Erikson, Carl

Rogers, Gregory Bateson, John Weakland, and family systems theory of the 1970s, and as such,

is considered humanistic in nature (Fish, 2014; Lewis & Lipchik, 2002; Osborne, 2004). Bateson,

Adler and Erikson are not only thought of as humanists, but as systems thinkers (Bauserman &

Rule, 1995). For example, Bateson emphasized the importance of individuals’ interactions with

their environment, while Adler thought of the individual as holistic and irreducible, and Erikson

who is known as the most imitated strategic therapist in the world believed that we are integral

elements of systems, a web of life, a functioning whole (Bauserman & Rule, 1995; Henning,

2009). Similarly, SFP is conceptualized as strategic in that the practitioner uses language and

specific language tools/skills as a strategy to engage with the client in a manner that helps the
 28

client contemplate future goals, exceptions to problems, and their own strategies/motivations to

achieve these ends (Bauserman & Rule, 1995).

One feature that distinguishes SFP from other, more traditional approaches is the idea that

solutions are not necessarily related to the problem and it isn’t necessary to understand the

etiology of the problem in order to discover a solution (Fish, 2011a; 2011b; Grant, 2014).

Instead, SFP has a future-focus that emphasizes a clear definition of goals, and the co-

construction of strategies which tend to highlight what the client is currently doing that is already

working for them; such a focus leads to positive expectancies which helps to diminish the

importance of the problem and engages them in activities that are productive (Fish, 2011b). The

goal in the SF sense is different than the typical understanding of endpoint; it is thought of as the

solution, which is considered an on-going process (Fish, 2011a) - very similar to Maslow’s

actualizing potential (Polkinghorne, 2001).

SF researchers suggest that labeling something as a problem increases the possibility of

stigma, of perpetuating and amplifying the problem (Fish, 2011b; Glass, 2001; Grant &

O’Connor, 2010). Traditional therapeutic practice has operated with the belief that by reflecting

on the problem one develops a better understanding of it (Glass, 2001; Grant & O’Connor, 2010);

however, research indicates otherwise. For example, Grant and O’Connor discovered that there

was no significant relationship between understanding the problem and goal progression. In fact,

some researchers have proposed that problem-focused thinking leads to rumination, a debilitating

cycle of thinking that is a risk factor for depression, depression relapse, negative well-being and

life satisfaction, reduced problem-solving skills, and reduced concentration (Grant et al., 2012).

Significantly, SFC has been shown to increased clients’ understanding and insight into

their problem while simultaneously increasing positive affect, an effect not seen with problem-

focused questioning (Grant & Connor, 2010). Perhaps even more important is that SF questions
 29

have also been shown to more effectively increase client’s self-efficacy than problem focused

questions (Braustein & Grant, 2016). Similar to Carl Rogers’ notion that individuals possess the

resources required to resolve their own challenges, solution focused practice holds that it is better

to spend time helping clients to identify their desired solution and the strategies necessary to

achieve those solution states, than exploring the antecedents to the problem (Grant et al., 2012). It

is hypothesized that such a perspective brings positive emotions and as a consequence, broadened

thinking to the clients’ context (Glass, 2001). Put simply, “positive emotions mediate useful

solutions” (p.37).

Recent randomized controlled studies have also demonstrated that SFC enhances goal

proximity, autonomy, subjective and psychological wellbeing as well as cognitive flexibility and

increases positive affect while decreasing negative affect (Green, Oades, & Grant, 2006;

Theeboom, Beersma, & Van Vianen, 2016) which is not surprising considering that cognitive

behaviour therapy and solution-focused techniques are frequently integrated in practice and

research and known as solution-focused cognitive-behavioural coaching (Braunstein & Grant,

2016). This integrated approach has been shown to successfully promote mental health (Pereira

Dias, Palmer, & Nardi, 2017). Despite these advances in our understanding of how coaching in

general and SFC more specifically facilitates behavioural change, researchers suggest there is a

still a need for greater understanding (Theeboom et al., 2016).

As SFC is slowly introduced to sport and sport psychology a number of interesting studies

have demonstrated its effectiveness. Barlow & Banks (2014) in a randomized controlled study

with elite female athletes found that SFC emphasizes emotional intelligence and such a focus

reduced athlete’s anxiety and increased their self-efficacy. Another recent study by Light and

Harvey (2015), suggest that a ‘solution-focused’ approach is akin to George’s (2006) positive

pedagogy approach and facilitates learning in coaches and athletes. While a sport psychology
 30

intervention by Høigaard & Johansen (2004) demonstrated that the SF approach helps to

facilitate change quickly and effectively by focusing on growth and improvement rather than

weaknesses and problems.

As mentioned earlier, SFP was conceptualized as language based, and de Shazer and Berg

(the founders of solution-focused practice) coined the term ‘solution talk’ to represent the nature

of conversations within solution-focused work (Fish, 2011b). With solution-talk, the coach uses

the client’s language and his/her understanding to help co-construct solutions (Macdonald, 2011).

Solution-talk is oriented around the strengths, abilities and resources of the client, in effect,

transitioning them (strategically) toward a more SF, positive manner of thinking (Mudd, 2000).

This approach is dependent on the client being able to identify her or his own challenges and

solutions, similar to the belief proposed by Erikson that clients must develop their own vision for

their lives (Mudd, 2000). To support this client-directed approach, the SFC assumes a ‘not-

knowing’ or a non-expert stance (Banninck, 2007; Cunanan & McCollum, 2006) and uses a

future-focused language that asks clients what they would like to change and what they want

instead of the problem they are currently experiencing. Change is facilitated by the way in which

the client and coach talk about the problem (Mudd, 2000).

There are a number of basic solution-focused tenets described by founders Steve de

Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg (de Shazer et al., 2007; Trepper, McCollum, De Jong, Korman,

Gingerich, & Franklin, 2010): it emphasizes solutions rather than problems; it is future focused; it

assumes clients already have resources and strengths; there are always exceptions to problems;

incremental change can lead to large increments of change; solutions do not have to be related to

presenting problems; and language is conversational and strategic. However, Grant (2011)

suggested that for the sake of teaching and evaluating SF practice, a simple taxonomy that

captures the essential principles can be described with three broad themes: goal orientation,
 31

resource activation and problem disengagement. Similarly, Mudd (2000) summarized three

foundational elements of SFP: philosophy (premises and assumptions), use of language, and

techniques. These two viewpoints fit nicely together; while Mudd’s elements capture the

fundamental principles that provide the framework, Grant’s taxonomy captures the principles that

guide the techniques.

Practically, SFC is often based on five assumptions and six types of questions. The five

assumptions are (Banninck, 2007b; Wakefield, 2006):

1. The solution isn’t necessarily related to the problem. It isn’t necessary to analyze the

problem in order to find a solution. It is more helpful to find the client’s solutions and

differences that are already making a difference.

2. The client is the expert. The client determines the goals and strategies.

3. If it’s working, do more of it. The client may not be aware that they are already doing

things that are making a difference. The coach encourages them to do more of what they

are already doing.

4. If it’s not working, do something different. It isn’t always necessary to solve the problem,

sometimes it is enough to try something different.

5. Lead from behind. The coach practices curiosity and respect.

The six question types are (Wakefield, 2006):

1. Miracle Question. The miracle question is used for goal setting.

2. Exception Questions. These questions help to identify skills and behaviours that are

already present.

3. Scaling Questions. The scaling questions help to monitor positive change, set goals and

identify strengths.
 32

4. Coping Questions. The coping questions also help identify client strengths and positive

aspects of the present.

5. Relationship Questions. These questions provide the opportunity to view the problem or

situation from a different point of view.

6. What Else Questions. The ‘what else’ question invites the client to search for more

information and insight.

Most significant, is the imperative understanding and belief that language used to develop

solutions is very different from language used to describe a problem (de Shazer, et al., 2007).

Language precedes thoughts and behaviour (Paufler & Beardsley, 2015) and according to

Fredrickson (2004), positive emotions broaden an individual’s thought-action repertoire. What

we focus on, grows.

The Intersection of Discourse, Cultural Psychology and Solution-Focused Work

In this section, I illustrate the reciprocity between language, communication, discourse

and narratives, with culture, which shapes how we think, feel and behave.

Language, Communication and Culture

Language. Language can be thought of as tool. Where the simple function of language

enables speakers to reveal their thoughts to a listener (Gauker, 2003), it also enables complex

computations of the brain, is inextricably connected to thought and it guides behaviour (Clark,

1997). Other perspectives include the notion that public language enables us to re-formulate

difficult tasks so that they may be more easily problem solved by the brain (Clark, 1997).

Language also allows us to communicate ideas and to profit from those ideas individually and

collectively. Yet, researchers and philosophers recognize that language is much more than simply
 33

an instrument of communication for transporting thoughts into and out of the mind (Carruther,

2002; Clark, 1997); instead, it helps process meaning (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002).

Language is not only a tool of the individual, but it locates itself in community and

community has a common or shared language (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002; Hampton, 2002;

Jackendoff, 2003), which according to some researchers, constitutes knowledge (Jackendoff,

2003). This shared language and knowledge is what helps us to resolve conflict and evolve

human thought (Hampton, 2002). Language is also considered the best tool for processing

meaning and connecting the individual to culture (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002). Language is what

allows the sum to be greater than its’ parts; it facilitates collective knowledge that can be used

multi-generationally (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002). And, perhaps most critically, language give us

the capability to create narratives and stories which provide meaning and allow human culture to

prosper (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002).

Communication. An estimated 55% of everyday communication is considered non-

verbal and 38% considered vocal (Macdonald, 2011). Cognitively, the ability to communicate is

sometimes linked to the ability to function in society (Wiemann & Backlund, 1980). As such, the

concept of communicative competence is important. Within the communication literature,

competence theory has two general perspectives: cognitive, which is concerned with competence

as a mental event, linguistically oriented and indicative of potential performance or ability; and

the behavioural perspective which is closely tied to effective behaviour and an individual’s ability

to perform in his or her environment (Wiemann & Backlund, 1980). However, the authors

suggested that competence depends on two features: tacit knowledge and the ability to use that

knowledge. There is also the position that communication competence is more than the use of

language; instead, it involves an understanding and awareness of the interaction between people,

giving it a social nature. In other words, communication competence can be conceptualized as an

 34

“individual’s ability to communicate in a personally effective and socially appropriate manner”

(as cited in Haselwood et al., 2005, p.11). However, if we consider communication through a

constitutive lens, the focus is less on the individual and communication as a means of expressing

one’s self, as it is about how the communication ‘defines, or constructs, the social world,

including ourselves and our personal relationships’ (Baxter, 2004, p.3).

Another way of considering communication is as a function of culture and meaning. This

involves language as discourse and narratives that organize our institutions, provide a framework

to construct the self and guide behaviour because this is how we create meaning – which

influences what we do, how we feel and what we believe (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003; Bruner,

1990). The mind uses these discourses and narratives as tools to make sense of our experiences

and reality (Geertz, 2001). Likewise, communication is what gives relationships and our

interactions with others meaning; it is how we construct and represent the self (Baxter, 2004).

This concept has profound implications for coaching communication and SA tendencies – which

Baxter called, ‘becoming’ and similar to SA, has no end point but is a constant reconstituting of

our selves.

Language and communication are therefore, both a fundamental and constitutive element

of the sport experience generally (Yandall, 2014), but in particular, it is essential to the

coach/athlete relationship (Cushion & Jones, 2014; Moen & Kvalsund, 2012; Mouchet, Harvey,

& Light, 2014) because at its’ most basic function, coaching involves instructional

communication. Sport is produced and reproduced through language and communication

practices (Mean & Halone, 2010) and these practices confer meaning through the discourses and

narratives that are told, shared, and endorsed.

Discourse and Narrative. Discourse can be understood as ideology, a dependable

assemblage of ideas individuals use to maneuver public life and understand their experience. It
 35

includes the implicit rules and regulations that govern public practice and behaviour as well as

providing a framework for understanding and perception. Discourses are often perceived as

‘truths’ that become embedded in culture and unchallengeable (Denison, 2010; Pringle, 2007)

and are considered inextricable from notions of power (Avner, 2014). Narratives on the other

hand, can take many forms including fairy tales. They are stories individuals tell about

themselves and others, both real and imagined. Similar to discourses, narratives help to transmit

cultural values and develop personal identities (Bamberg, 2011), as well as mediate our

experience and behaviour (Mattingly et al., 2008) and make sense of the unexpected (Bruner,

2008). However, while discourses tend to entrench ‘truths’ (Claringbould, Knoppers, & Jacobs,

2015; Pringle, 2007); narratives can be generative and inspire change. Yet, it has been suggested

that discourse and narrative converge (Bamberg, 2011) and by analyzing discourses (and

narratives) we can learn about the mechanisms that shape the actions and thoughts of participants,

which is the aim of this project.

Culture. Contrary to the familiar cultural maxim in sport ‘this is the way we do things

here’, culture can best be defined as the shared ordinariness of everyday practices that provide

members with a way of understanding what constitutes meaning and guides behaviour.

Importantly, it also gives members a framework for reconciling any deviations from their shared

ordinariness (Bruner, 2008; Geertz, 2001) or described another way, culture provides a

community toolkit (Mattingly et al., 2008) for how we think, feel and behave. Although cultural

norms are often implicit and internalized (Bruner, 2008) they provide our lives with meaning

through shared public practices that help us make sense of the world (Bruner, 2008). It is

believed by some that culture contributes to our mental functioning, which is why it is so

important to psychology (Geertz, 2001). In fact, Bruner (1990) suggests that culture is the source
 36

of our ‘folk psychologies’ and every culture has narratives that contribute to their folk

psychology.

Although, it is generally agreed that our understanding about how culture shapes the mind

is still vague (Bruner, 2008), there is at least more of a consensus that it does. Bruner explained

that the individual internalizes cultural demands, then personalizes and legitimizes them; finally,

they are externalized through institutions. Thus, the need for cultural psychology, which

interprets and examines how individuals engage with these systems of shared meaning, human

thinking, significance, self-development, beliefs and emotions (Geertz, 2001).

Summary. Language, communication and discursive practices are how sport culture is

manifested. These interactions form our cultural norms and reinforce or maintain systems of

power and discrimination. Culture, language and discourse are also fundamental to understanding

the mind, psychology and behaviour (Bakhurst & Shanker, 2001; Yanow, 2014). Behaviour

cannot be dissected from context, which is culture; culture shapes the mind, our thinking and

behaviour, which are preceded by language (Clark, 1997; Paufler & Amerien-Beardsley, 2015).

As such, psychology can help illuminate human mental functioning and inter-subjectivity when

we focus on the cultural processes that contribute to individual and collective development

(Bruner, 1990; Geertz, 2001).

Of relevance to my study is the notion that SF coaching provides both a set of

communicative skills (rules) that can be applied to a variety of relationships and contexts, and

assumptions, which guide the use and application of these skills, therefore meeting cognitive and

behavioural aspects of communicative competence. At the same time, it provides a theoretical

structure to help understand the ways in which language changes the discourses and culture

within this team. SF work evolved from humanistic psychology model and uses language to
 37

enhance self-awareness, self-perception, positive emotions, autonomy, agency, and goal striving

(Green, Oades, & Grant, 2006).

Sport Discourse and Culture

The previous sections emphasize the connections between discourses, narratives and

culture. In the following sections, I exhibit literature that paints an unflattering picture of

dominant sport discourses and culture. First, I discuss the generalities of sport culture and the

Great Sport Myth (GSM), then I consider themes of coach power, disciplinary power, athlete

docility and finally outcomes that have been associated with current culture. Finally, I address the

coach development and effectiveness and I conclude with a restatement of my research questions

and purpose.

Sport Culture. Few would contest that sport is considered by many (most) to be an

important social institution that contributes to youth development, as well as the development of

social and community ethics and morals (Coakley, 2011; Sherry & Shilbury, 2007). However,

many researchers now warn of dangers associated with this commonly-held view of sport

(Coakley, 2011; Guilanotti, 2004) which, in reality, is an ideological narrative often perpetuated

by “sport evangelists” (as cited in Coakley, 2011, p.307) who believe that sport has a fertilizer

effect - the power to help individuals and society solve their problems. However, we frequently

observe and learn of behaviours from sport stakeholders that contradict these beliefs (the

behaviour of Dr. Larry Nassar for example!). Such beliefs serve to preserve policy initiatives that

further perpetuate the sport-as-moral oasis myth and as a result, critical evaluation of sport

culture is extremely difficult (Coakley, 2011).

Numerous researchers have produced evidence which suggests that the benefits attributed

to youth sport participation are contextual (Coakley, 2011; Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin,
 38

2005; Weiss & Williams, 2004) and often do not occur at all (Holt, 2008; Holt, Tamminen, Tink,

& Black, 2009; Vierimaa, Erickson, Côté, & Gilbert, 2012). However, even repeated failures of

sport programs to produce the desired effects of positive development, rarely impact the deeply

entrenched beliefs of sport’s inherent goodness. Instead, “when failures occur, blame is attributed

to those individuals whose inferred character flaws or defective social and cultural backgrounds

are perceived to prevent them from internalizing the essential developmental lessons of sport

(Coakley, 2011, p.309). Previously, I have referred to these challenges as the GSM, yet Denison

(2010) suggests there is an anti-intellectualism in sport that makes it difficult to adopt new

approaches.

The language and discursive practices of high-performance sport are deeply embedded

cultural norms (Mean & Halone, 2010) characterized by an asymmetrical power arrangement that

privileges coach’s knowledge, resources and influence (Johns & Johns, 2000). And within the

context of this study, high-performance inter-university sport, researchers admit that the structure

of interuniversity sport systems force athletes to maneuver competing and contradictory beliefs

about who they are and who they should be (Yandall, 2015). These unwritten rules of

engagement are institutionalized and represent the political, economic, and power arrangements

shaped by sport culture (Johns & Johns, 2000).

Some researchers suggest that these invisible discourses are being unveiled more

frequently as we try to discover ways of changing them (Mean & Halone, 2010). However, for

the time being, sport performance is closely tied to “what can be said, who gets to speak and with

what conviction” (Aver, 2014, p. 54). This, ultimately, creates the climate for coaching (Purdy,

Jones, & Cassidy, 2009).

Coach Power. Few would argue the critical and influential role of coaches with regard to

the development of athletes (Evans, McGuckin, Gainforth, Bruner, & Cöté, 2015). The control of
 39

the coach is believed to extend far beyond the sport environment (Barcza-Renner, Eklund, Morin,

& Habeeb, 2016) despite that we actually know very little about what permits coaches to have

such a strong influence on athletes (Rylander, 2015), and to hold such a position of control within

the performance discourse (Purdy et al., 2009).

Many researchers suggest that poor coaching practices identified in sport at all levels is

due to the normalization of, and socialization of sport stakeholders into power arrangements

where the coach holds an exalted position of power and authority, while the athlete is expected to

be passive, live sacrificially, and be compliant (Cushion & Jones, 2006; Johns & Johns, 2000;

Taylor & Garratt, 2010). It has been suggested though, that athletes give coaches this power in

exchange for resources such as knowledge and praise for example (Rylander, 2015). However,

this model of coach expertise supports our understanding of linear and mechanistic athlete

development and performance (Avner, 2014), where to be successful, one must be able to make

athletes do what they as the coach want (Denison, 2010). In fact, researchers have posited that

aggressive, authoritative, harsh coaching methods represent the institutional discourse of sport

that deems these methods useful and necessary (Cushion & Jones, 2003). The discourse

perpetuates a well-defined and impenetrable social order where the coach is commander

(Denison, 2010).

Disciplinary Power. Coaches have also been described as the gatekeepers of culture

since they control behaviour and discipline (Claringbould, Knoppers, & Jacobs, 2015). Very few

stakeholders in sport question the coach as disciplinarian (Denison, Mills, & Jones, 2013). Even

parents are hesitant to question disciplinary choices of the coach (Kerr & Stirling, 2012). Often,

coaches are considered justified when they punish athletes because sport culture deems them to

be experts and wise (Johns & Johns, 2000) and it tells us that it will inevitably lead to positive
 40

character development (Coakley, 2015). Quite simply, coaches (and others) believe that success

depends on creating coachable, obedient athletes (Heikkala, 1993).

Athlete Docility. Researchers charge that our current sport culture supports the

development of athlete docility, that we aim for coach dependent athletes (Avner, 2014) who

have in fact an obligation to obey (Cushion & Jones, 2003). The discourse legitimizes the use of

coercive power to guarantee passivity. Athletes are said to be socialized into sport attitudes that

require them to play through pain and injury, due to their belief that they must demonstrate

toughness (Wiese-Bjornstal, 2010) as well as physical exertion, diligence and hard work

(Claringbould et al., 2015).

Interestingly, as mentioned, there is an avenue of research that explores why athletes

allow coaches to control them (Purdy, Jones, & Cassidy, 2009). For the most part, athletes rarely

perceive the behaviours of their coach as abusive or harmful; on the contrary, they interpreted the

behaviours as motivational and appear to endorse the values of the system and do not question

their position in it (Cushion & Jones, 2003). In fact, some researchers suggest athletes are

encultured to the extent that they are blindly obedient to their coaches (Johns & Johns, 2000),

sometimes taking drugs at their coach’s direction (Smith et al., 2010), injuring opponents at their

coach’s command (Gelston, 2005), and serving as objects of their coach’s sexual desires

(Brackenridge, Bringer, & Bishop, 2005; Fasting & Brackenridge, 2005; Hartill, 2009).

They seem to accept this constant pressure to conform to the coach’s judgements, rules, and

standards (Denison, Mills, & Jones, 2013). There appears to be some truth in the concept that “a

language of discipline” means “the coach’s rule is never questioned” (Denison, 2010, p. 469).

Athletes have internalized these discourses that demand their docility as truths because they

represent the shared meaning of sport culture (Johns & Johns, 2000).
 41

Outcomes. Researchers now suggest that the normalization of these discourses may have

serious and long-term negative implications for the well-being of athletes (Cook & Kerr, 2016;

Stirling, 2013) that includes limiting their development, sense of control and autonomy (Denison,

2007).

The culture of sport currently works to stifle the independence and responsibility of

athletes. If we want to empower them, we need to build structures and systems, essentially a

culture that gives them independence and responsibility (Yandall, 2014). We need coaches who

know how to question the discursive practice of high-performance sport and enter into new

language and ways of communicating, so athletes might experience “the true value of their

commitment” (Johns & Johns, 2000, p. 232).

Coaching Effectiveness

In this section, I present the dilemma surrounding the definition and concept of sport

coaching effectiveness as it is presented in literature.

Although there are many definitions of what coaching is, it has been suggested that most

models have a number of similar tenets, which I propose are also valuable to sport coaches: the

aims of coaching encourage clients to assume direction of their own life; coaching is reliant on

the dual skills of listening and questioning; it involves collaboration and an egalitarian

relationship with coachee; it is intended to access and amplify the client’s inner resources,

experience and knowledge; and finally, it focuses on the achievement of clearly stated client

goals (Ives, 2008).

There is some confusion in sport coaching literature however, regarding the

conceptualization and definition of sport coaching effectiveness (Coté & Gilbert, 2009). In sport,

coaching effectiveness is a term that is regularly used interchangeably with success, expertise
 42

(Ford, Coughlan, & Williams, 2009) and competence (Côté, 2006), primarily because coaching

effectiveness is often evaluated by athlete success, which is to say, winning (Ford et al., 2009;

Kozub & Button, 2000). Researchers propose that a result of such a focus is the tendency of

coaches to develop programs that are technocratic and rigid (Evans, McGuckin, Gainforth,

Bruner, & Cöté, 2015).

However, if competence is the equivalent of effectiveness then, “competence occurs when

a threshold of coaching experiences is obtained” (Côté, 2006;, p.221) and another definition

depicts sport coaching effectiveness as, “the consistent application of integrated professional,

interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge to improve athletes’ competence, confidence,

connection, and character in specific coaching contexts” (Côté & Gilbert, 2009, p.316). Yet there

are definitions considered synonymous with coaching effectiveness. For example, Côté and

colleagues (2010) present the following definition of excellent coaches: “excellent coaches are

aware of the necessity for congruence between their own knowledge and skills and a specific

athlete’s developmental needs” (p.78) and while Smith, Smoll and Hunt (1977) do not overtly

present any specific definitions per se, they are inferred in their many papers, all of which focus

on the coach-athlete relationship. For example, a common theme found in their work is the

mastery approach to youth sport coaching (Smith, Smoll, & Cumming, 2007), which they report -

through quantitative analysis of athlete outcomes based on their coaching intervention - as

reducing athlete anxiety, fear of failure, increasing athlete satisfaction and decreasing attrition.

They also state explicitly (2006) that a “positive coach-athlete relationship can enhance athlete’s

psychological and social well-being, foster the development of self-efficacy, positive values and

coping skills, and promote continued involvement in healthy physical activity” (p.19).

Interestingly, many definitions tend to describe the outcomes of coaching effectiveness, or

excellent coaching, such as: positive coach-athlete relationships, enhanced athlete well-being, or
 43

increased awareness of an athlete’s developmental needs; but there is rarely a clear, concise

description. Even the definition provided by Côté and Gilbert (2009) “the consistent application

of integrated professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge to improve athletes’

competence, confidence, connection, and character in specific coaching contexts” (p.316), is

frustratingly vague. However, in the few short years since I embarked on this project, there has

been an applied interest in how to develop effective coaches as coach education becomes

increasingly more important within sport governing bodies (Evans et al., 2015). As a result, the

concept of coaching effectiveness has been more clearly articulated and generally accepted as

coaches who are able to integrate their technical knowledge with their knowledge of coach-

athlete relationships with personal reflection, in a manner that helps to facilitate the athlete’s

personal, social and athletic development (Evans et al., 2015).

Although it is acknowledged that converting the concept of sport coaching effectiveness

into practice is difficult, the associated outcomes for athletes such as enhancement of their

psychosocial attributes, confidence, and autonomy (Evans et al., 2015b) are well worth the effort.

Hodgson and colleagues (2017) best describe coaching effectiveness as the quality of interactions

between coach, athlete and context, where sport coaching is how coaches positively influence the

learning and development of athletes.

Coach Learning and Development

In the following passages, I first introduce literature that explains the current state of sport

coach learning and development. Then, I provide an outline of the most commonly used learning

contexts for sport coaches including formal learning, non-formal learning, informal learning and

experiential learning. This is followed by a description of coach development programs and the
 44

coaching model that I propose. To conclude, as mentioned previously, I restate the purpose of

this project and my research questions.

Cushion (2014) described the sport domain as having been monopolized by quantitative

study design and as unduly reliant on cross-sectional research that fails to capture the complexity

and nuances of coaching. In keeping with a positivistic lens, coach effectiveness and learning, are

frequently approached from a reductionist perspective, reducing concepts and participants to

elements that can be more easily studied. As mentioned earlier, humanism typically eschews a

positivistic, reductionist perspective in favour of viewing individuals holistically and contextually

(Moss, 2001). Therefore, this research study is meant to contribute to the gap created by such a

monopoly.

Coach learning and coach effectiveness are discussed concomitantly, as coach

effectiveness is often conceived as a result of coach learning (Côté, & Gilbert, 2009) and within

the framework of these traditional models, coaching effectiveness is recurrently measured in

relation to successful performance results (Côté, & Gilbert, 2009; Ford et al., 2009; Kerr &

Stirling, 2008; Kidman, 2005; Moen & Federici, 2013). Yet, despite decades of using such a

research lens, academics and administrators agree that coaching effectiveness remains poorly

defined and conceptualized (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Cushion & Nelson, 2013; Gilbert & Côté,

2013; Trudel et al, 2010), and as a result, coach learning remains an equally mysterious concept

(Cushion & Nelson, 2013; Gilbert & Trudel, 1999; Trudel et al., 2010).

Nelson and colleagues (2014) submitted that current coaching practices are based on

“tradition, circumstance and external authority” (p.514). As a result, coach education programs

are not necessarily based on theoretical frameworks; instead, they are based on ‘folk pedagogies’

- strong, implicit beliefs of how coaches learn and what is good for them (Nelson et al., 2014).

These beliefs also determine how coaching and coach education are delivered. Similarly,
 45

Sheridan (2006) wrote about the socialization of coaches into routines and practices that are not

necessarily helpful to them or their athletes. Of acute importance here is our understanding that as

athletes develop, their preference for social support and more democratic coaching increases

(Ahlberg, Mallett, & Tinning, 2008; Jenny, 2013); therefore, it is imperative these folk

pedagogies are addressed and investigated through research.

Central to the discourse of coach education and folk coaching pedagogy is the notion of

power. Nelson and colleagues (2014) advise that the goals of coaching and coach education, as

well as the issues of politics and power in coaching, deserve critical consideration because

current coaching discourses perpetuate the entrenched legitimacy of coaching practice rather than

needed change. They also suggest that currently, coaching functions as an expert/prescriptive

system, where the coach imparts her or his expertise to the athlete(s), controlling as many

elements of the process as possible, trying in fact to minimize collaboration for fear of appearing

unknowledgeable or weak (Jones, Armour, & Potrac, 2003, 2004). Other researchers have

presented research supporting this perspective, reporting that current coaching practices and

coaching culture have default deterrents resisting power sharing (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac,

2009). Furthermore, research reveals coaching practices which are authoritarian, coach-led,

aggressive and hierarchal (Cushion & Jones, 2012), perpetuating beliefs such as the necessity of

athlete obedience, athlete subordination, and athlete objectification (Potrac & Jones, 2011). Not

surprisingly, in such a system, athletes assume passive roles (Cushion & Jones, 2012). Nelson

and colleagues (2014) attributed these beliefs and practices to entrenched coach education

programs that emphasize teaching and a top-down expertise.

Aside from the commonly accepted belief that coach learning involves three modes,

formal, non-formal and informal (Lemyre, Trudel, & Durand-Bush, 2007; Nelson, Cushion, &

Potrac, 2006; Trudel, Gilbert, & Werthner, 2010), there is considerable disparity about how,
 46

what, when and where coaches learn (Nelson et al., 2006). Even with regard to formal, non-

formal and informal learning, some suggest that these are not learning types but types of

situations in which learning takes place (Jarvis, 2006, as cited in Trudel et al., 2010). Nelson and

colleagues (2006) submitted that learning puts the emphasis on the individual and is an “act or

process by which behavioural change, knowledge, skills and attitudes are acquired” (Coombs &

Ahmed, 1974, as cited in Nelson et al., 2006, p.248) while education is considered “the process

of assisted or guided learning” (p.248). There is perhaps one other condition that is generally

agreed upon and that is the ineffectiveness of current coaching programs to meet the complex

needs, preferences and demands of coach learning (Cushion, et al., 2006; Nelson, et al., 2006;

North, 2010; Trudel, Gilbert, & Werthner, 2010). Therefore, it may be helpful to highlight some

of the important elements, insights and examples associated with each of these three learning

situations to provide a contextual understanding of the coach learning conflict and the solutions

proposed by this study.

Formal Learning. Formal learning situations for coaches are usually characterized as

curriculum-driven, mechanistic, technically focused, highly structured and supervised by a

certifying governing body (Marsik & Watkins, 2001; Nelson et al., 2006; Trudel et al., 2010). In

Canada, the Coaching Association of Canada (CAC) governs the coaching certification process

and the program is known as the National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP). The NCCP

identifies five core coaching competencies: valuing, interacting, leading, problem-solving and

critical thinking (CAC, n.d.).

Again, evidence of the value and effectiveness of these formal learning situations is

conflicted. Some research suggests that these national programs have little applied value; in other

words, coaches do not transfer information into practice (Côté, 2006; Nelson, Cushion & Potrac,

2006; North, 2010). It has also been suggested that these courses are too technically focused and
 47

theory laden (Jones & Wallace, 2005; Lemyre et al., 2007; Nelson, Cushion, & Potrac, 2006;

Vargas-Tonsing, 2007).

Conversely, however, there is research to suggest that outcomes associated with formal

learning situations have positive effects (Chase, 2010): increased perceived coach efficacy

(Malette & Feltz, 2000), better social facilitation skills (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2006), and

improved coach stress management and coping strategies (Frey, 2007). McCullick and colleagues

stated that formal coaching education programs are likely to inform coach competency (2009).

Additionally, work by Erickson et al. (2008) found that a significant percentage of coaches cited

the NCCP as their primary source of coaching knowledge.

Non-Formal Learning. Of the three learning situations, non-formal learning appears to

be the least investigated. Described as learning opportunities that are “organized educational

activities” (Erickson et al., 2008, p.529) for particular coaching sub-groups (Nelson et al., 2006),

such as conferences and workshops and clinics, they do not lead to certification, although they

may contribute to maintenance of certification (Trudel et al., 2010). In terms of outcomes for

coach learning, they are often equated as being equally poor with regards to their impractical

relevance as formal coaching situations (North, 2010). Yet, as McCullick and colleagues (2009)

stated, there is little rationale to help explain the focus, or lack of focus, with regards to

assessments and evaluations of coach education programs.

Informal Learning. It appears that much of the focus of coach education over the past

few years has emphasized the benefits and value of informal learning (North, 2010). Informal

learning is described as learning opportunities that occur outside the boundaries of the formal

system (Nelson et al. 2006; Trudel et al., 2010). Marsick & Watkins (2001) proposed that

informal learning is intentional but loosely structured and the most important distinguishing

factor is that the learner is in control of her or his learning. They also suggested that incidental
 48

learning, which is considered a by-product of some other activity and may be conscious or

unconscious, is included in the informal learning process. Informal learning is considered

emblematic for sport coaches (MacDonald et al., 2010) and can include: observing other coaches,

mentoring, self-directed learning (reading, videos, internet) playing experience, discussions and

interactions with other coaches (Lemyre et al., 2007; Smith & Cushion, 2006).

Informal learning is often cited as the one of the most important sources of coach

knowledge (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003; MacDonald et al., 2010) and in the sport context is

often expressed as experiential learning, or learning by doing (MacDonald et al., 2010).

Additionally, learning by doing has been reported most often by coaches as their actual source of

coaching knowledge (Erickson et al., 2008; Gilbert & Trudel, 2006), as well as their preferred

source of knowledge (Gilbert, Gallimore, & Trudel, 2009). It is thought that informal learning

situations provide better opportunities to develop the problem solving and critical thinking skills

of coaches (Gilbert et al., 2009) because they are “grounded in the realities of day-to-day

coaching practice” (North, 2010, p.240), admittedly, however, much of what coaches learn is

encultured and not all experienced coaches are competent (Cushion et al., 2003). Importantly, not

everyone learns from experience (Callary, Werthner, & Trudel, 2012).

Due to the apparent influence of informal learning and the perceived value of experiential

learning to positively affect coach learning - and as a result, coach behaviour - it may be helpful

to elaborate on the concept of experiential learning and provide some examples commonly

thought to be effective in the sport context.

Experiential Learning. One would expect that if coaches are learning positive skills

and attributes as a result of any of the aforementioned learning situations (or any others not

mentioned) we could expect to see that learning expressed through sound coaching behaviours

and practice (Rogers, Reade, & Hall, 2007). However, this is not the case much of the time, and
 49

as a result, it becomes important to assess and evaluate coach learning in order to positively

impact coaching skills and improve outcomes. Although research indicates that coaches seem to

prefer learning by doing (Erickson et al., 2008), and there is some evidence to suggest some

strategies are effective (Rodgers, Reade, & Hall, 2007) it remains, as statistics illustrating

harmful coaching behaviours indicate, questionable whether true learning is occurring as we

would like to believe.

Generally, the usefulness and application of experiential learning, like many theories and

models in research and academia, is confounded by numerous definitions and applications

(Cushion et al., 2010). Some clarity of the salient features of this learning process as they might

apply to coach learning would thus seem important given that it is often cited as a major

determinant of coach learning (Cushion et al., 2010). It appears that a predominance of the

research involving experiential learning in sport has been heavily influenced by the work of

Gilbert and Trudel, especially their interpretation of Schon’s model of experiential learning, and

in particular, how it contributes to reflective practice (Gilbert & Trudel, 1999; Gilbert & Trudel,

2001, Gilbert & Trudel, 2004; Irwin et al., 2004; Nelson & Cushion, 2006; Rynne, Mallett, &

Tinning, 2006). From this emphasis, a number of experiential learning models have evolved and

been the focus of considerable research, including: communities of practice (Côté, 2006; Culver,

Trudel, & Werthner, 2009; Culver & Trudel, 2008; Gilbert, et al., 2009), mentoring (Irwin et al.,

2004; MacDonald et al., 2010; Mallett, Trudel, Lyle, & Rynne, 2009; North, 2010; Vella et al.,

2013); and reflective practice (Culver et al., 2009; Dixon & Ghaye, 2013; Gilbert & Trudel,

2005; Hughes, Lee, & Chesterfield, 2009; Mallet et al., 2009; Nash & Sproule, 2009).

According to Fisher, Turesky, and Gallagher (2011), Piaget (1969), Lewin (1951), Dewey

(1958), Freire (1974) and Lewin (1951) – the father of action research (Bradbury, 2010) -all

emphasized the importance of critical reflection as part of the experiential learning process. In
 50

fact, Kolb’s model of experiential learning has been embraced by action researchers, as well as

those in the sport context, who suggest it may be useful to understand how coaches learn

(Cushion et. al., 2010).

Experiential learning is defined by Kolb (2005) as “the process whereby knowledge is

created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of

grasping and transforming experience” (p.2). As such, Kolb describes experiential learning as a

process of adaptation and states that, “Knowing is a process, not a product” (Kolb, 1984, p.9). He

goes on to describe his model as a four-stage learning cycle that requires the learner to use

logically opposed abilities in order to grasp experience. The four stages of grasping and

transforming experience include, Concrete Experience (CE), Abstract Conceptualization (AC),

Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE). Practically, an individual has an

experience (CE), this experience provides the basis for observations and reflections (RO), which

are transformed into abstract concepts (AC), which are then used to derive implications for

action, and these new implications are then actively tested (AE).

Kolb also suggested that learners are constantly choosing which abilities to use in a

specific learning situation and as a result we often develop a preferred way of choosing. This way

of choosing is considered our learning style (Kolb, 2000). For example, with regard to grasping

concrete experience, some of us prefer tangible qualities (what we can see and touch) while

others might grasp new information through experience using symbolic representation

(analyzing, planning); with regard to transforming experience some are content to observe, while

others prefer to try and do it themselves. Kolb (2000) suggested the watchers prefer reflective

observation (RO) and the doers prefer active experimentation (AE). He further defined learners

as having one of four predominate learning styles: (1) Diverging learners’ dominant abilities are

CE and RO; (2) Assimilating learners’ dominant abilities are AC and RO; (3) Converging
 51

learners’ dominant abilities are AC and AE; (4) Accommodating learners’ dominant abilities are

CE and AE. The soundness of an individual’s learning style is established by the consistency of

transactional patterns and learning situations in his or her life (Kolb, 2010). According to Kolb

(2010), accentuation, the process by which we learn about a new situation, informs our choices

and the options we perceive, and these choices and options influence the next situation, which

then influences the next situation, and so on.

Kolb’s theory of experiential learning and model of learning styles could help to explain

why coach learning seems to be so poor. To begin with, there is little, if any, research regarding

coach-learning styles (Cushion et al., 2010). As Kolb suggested (2005), learning is diminished

when the material is presented in a manner incongruent with the preferred learning style, which is

to say we should not assume that by default, coaches learn best and most often by experience due

to the highly experiential nature of the sporting environment. In fact, the sporting context may

limit the options and choices coaches perceive, thereby reinforcing transactional patterns that

inform poor choices. This would support the notion that an individual “may be socialized into the

norms of an organization without being aware either of the learning or of what some of the norms

are” (Eraut, 2000, p.118) and also the idea proposed by Cushion et al. (2003) that “much of what

is learned is enculturation” (p.217). For example, Kolb (1984) stated that “resistance to new

ideas stems from their conflict with old beliefs that are inconsistent with them” (p.28). Could it

be that what coaches are being taught formally is inconsistent with the culture of sport and with

what they are experiencing and observing? Additionally, Kolb (1984) described performance as

“the short-term adaptation to immediate circumstance” (p.34) and according to Kolb,

performance is not learning. Yet, what is sport if it is not performance? For example,

Magdalinski (2009) suggests that our current sport system, inspired by the Olympic motto Citius,

Altius, Fortius, contributes to performance expectations which intrude on the sporting body by
 52

creating internal and external expectations of visual and functional athletic expectations. These

expectations contribute to dominant discourses.

Additionally, research indicates that experiential learning includes a formal intention to

learn and this distinction is important for learning to occur (Cushion et al. 2010; Moon, 2004).

Previous research does not seem to address this fundamental aspect of experiential learning;

instead, there is “a conspicuous focus in the last 13 years [that] appears to be a fascination with

what coaches know and believe about CEPs [coach education programs] and, specifically, what

content, curriculum, and outcomes they want CEPs to include” (McCullick et al., 2009, p.329). In

fact, researchers often suggest caution regarding reflective practice and characterizing elements

such as unmediated learning because they depend on the individual’s ability and willingness to

learn by themselves (Reade et al., 2008). Fortunately, Kolb considered the concept of intentional

learning and refers to it as deliberate practice.

Kolb claimed that it is the responsibility of the individual to manage and direct her or his

own learning (Kolb & Yeganah, 2011). Certainly, this is not opposed to research presented here

that indicates coach’s preference for informal learning situations (MacDonald et al., 2010).

However, the idea that coaches only pretend to be learning in certain situations, while internally

disagreeing and rejecting the learning due to their deep-seated coaching beliefs (Vargas-Tonsing,

2007) does not indicate responsible management and development of their learning process;

however, it does align with Kolb’s (1981) proposition that learning does not take place until the

conflict between old ideas and new ideas is resolved. When Kolb discussed mastering

experiential learning, he advocated deliberate practice, which he described as “focused reflection

on a concrete performance experience that is analyzed against a meta-cognitive ideal model to

improve future action in a recurring cycle of learning” (Kolb & Yeganah, 2011, p.9). In the

sporting context, deliberate practice is a framework theorizing a commitment of 10,000 hours (or
 53

10 years) of high quality, concentrated practice of increasing complexity and improved

performance (Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2006). Although the meaning of deliberate practice is

different for experiential learning, the sport coach’s familiarity with the term may create a helpful

curiosity. Interestingly, Kolb described the key to deliberate learning as intentionality. He

encouraged learners to cultivate a mindfulness and awareness of experiential learning that moves

them out of auto-pilot and into focused reflection. He called this “the learning way”, an attitude

that reflects one’s approach to life experiences (Kolb & Yeganah, 2011, p.2).

Coach Development Programs

Coach development programs (CDP) represent our efforts to positively change coach

behaviour in a manner that enhances outcomes for athletes (Allan, Vierimaa, Gainforth, & Cöté,

2017). CDPs are considered fundamental to the process of sport coaching professional

development and can comprise all learning and education programs designed to enhance coach

behaviour, skill development and education. They can take place in formal as well as non-formal

learning situations (Allan et al., 2017) and researchers suggest that they can effectively enhance

both coach development and athlete outcomes (Lefebvre, Evans, Turnnidge, Gainforth, & Côté

2016). In fact, the belief is that CDPs which specifically target sport coach’s interpersonal

development (coach-athlete relationships), will augment not only their own psychosocial

benefits, but those of their athletes as well (Evans, McGuckin, Gainforth, Bruner, & Côté, 2015).

Nonetheless, there are several concerns and gaps within the CDP literature. Firstly, the

aim of most CDPs is to address coaches’ technical or tactical skills (Lefebvre et al., 2016).

Secondly, little is known about which strategies and/or techniques best affect behavioural change.

Finally, researchers submit that there is a very poor link between theoretical frameworks and the
 54

techniques used to effect change (Allan et al., 2017), which limits our evaluation of their

effectiveness.

Professional vs Interpersonal CDPs. Researchers report that CDPs are most commonly

used to improve the technical competence and capability of coaches (Bruner, Erickson, Wilson,

& Côté, 2010), or what is considered their professional knowledge (Evans et al., 2015). Given the

connection made previously between the dominant sport discourse of coach as expert and

commander and how such a discourse encourages systems that perceive athlete development as a

technocratic, linear process, this is perhaps not surprising. Yet, in the same breath, researchers are

aware of the significant impact interpersonal and intrapersonal coaching skills have on athlete

outcomes (Evans et al., 2015). Many suppositions are posed to explain this skewed emphasis.

Some researchers suggest that intrapersonal (self-reflection) skills are possibly integrated in ways

less visible to already existing programs (Lefebvre et al., 2016), while others suggest perhaps it is

more difficult to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the quality of coach-athlete

relationships much less understand the ‘hows’ behind coaches’ interpersonal behaviour (Allan et

al., 2017; Hodgson et al., 2017). In any case, there remains a gap that I hope this research can

address to some extent.

Strategies and Theory. The most frequently used behaviour change theory (BCT) that

CDPs address is instructional (Bruner et al., 2010) and most programmes targeted coach

motivation (Allan et al., 2017). However, researchers are concerned that despite the opportunities

CDPs have to influence coach behaviour, there is very little theoretical understanding behind the

explanations of change (Allan et al., 2017). Allan and colleagues have reported, in their study that

reviewed 29 different CDPs, none presented appropriate support for the theory used. They, and

others (Bruner et al., 2010), also strongly suggest that theory informed CDPs are the best means
 55

to change coach behaviour because they help to illuminate our understanding of factors that

influence coach behaviour and learning.

Significantly, in a study of 285 CDPs used to synthesize literature in this area of study,

authors distinguished 16 coach development domains of focus, and none involved coach

communication. This finding is perplexing given researchers’ acknowledgement that coach

development and learning practice would improve with a common language (Lefebvre et al.,

2017).

Using a Coaching Model for Coach Learning

There is a significant degree of irony to the idea that coaching concepts and practices as

they have developed outside of the sporting field, should now be used to enhance the

competencies of sport coaches. In general, the coaching profession defines coaching as a helping

relationship between the coach and coachee (Moen & Federici, 2013), while Grant and Connor

(2010) suggest that coaching is used to enhance performance and development, as well as well-

being, and depends on effective questioning. However, it is generally agreed that within and

outside of sport, a central element to the success of any coaching is relational (Grant, 2006;

Jowett, 2005, 2007; Moen & Federici, 2013). Perhaps because, “Coaching is increasingly being

used as a means of enhancing performance, development and well-being” (Grant & O’Connor,

2010, p.102), it aligns so well with sport coaching, which has always focused on enhancing

performance and development.

Nonetheless, several researchers have made recommendations of, or comparisons to, the

teaching profession as a model for sport coach learning and development (Côté & Gilbert, 2009;

Gilbert, Gallimore, & Trudel, 2009; Roberts, 2010). As Nelson and colleagues (2014) posit,

however, many of the problems surrounding coaching are due to the emphasis on teaching, as the
 56

‘coach as educator’ model preserves the prescriptive power and authority of the coach because

they are perceived as the expert, having knowledge to impart and control to maintain. Instead of

the ‘coach as educator’ model, Nelson and colleagues recommend a humanistic, ‘coach as

facilitator’ model. I go one step further and recommend the ‘coach as coach’ model.

From a humanistic coaching perspective, this means that the coach facilitates growth

rather than directing, and as such, helps to manage the process (Stober, 2006). Stober also

asserted that humanism and coaching share foundational principles of self-actualization and when

coaches assume this perspective they let go of being content experts because the coachee is the

expert on the content of her or his own experience; instead, the coachee becomes an expert on the

process of coaching. SF coaches use Kolb’s experiential learning model, but without the labels.

In effect, coaches help direct the coachee’s attention (CE) and observations (RO), to interpret and

transform experience (AC) into learning that amplifies their self-actualizing potential and set new

goals (AE).

For sport coaches, then, a coaching model inherently supports what sport coaches already

profess to do, namely to facilitate the development and success of their athletes (Nash, Sproule,

& Horton, 2008) and at the same time, the coaching model turns the sport coaching model upside

down by establishing clear foundational practices that challenge the coach-led model currently

dominating sport.
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS

Mental Model

“To think about anything requires an image or concept of it, a model (Gharajdaghi &

Ackoff, 1984). Some researchers propose that the mental model of a researcher is more important

than the paradigmatic model (Greene & Hall, 2010). The mental model can be described as the

“assumptions, analogies, metaphors, or crude models that are held at the very outset of the

researcher’s work…[and] are present even before any [formal] theories or [explicit] models have

been constructed” (as cited in Smith, 1997, p.72). A mental model informs how we perceive the

world, what we value as knowledge and how we believe evaluations ought to be done (Smith,

1997) and it includes our experiential wisdom (Greene, 2012).

As an action researcher, I am inherently guided by my assumptions (Bradbury, 2010)

about the nature of reality and life. Unlike traditional research, where a step-by-step research plan

is developed prior to undertaking the research, with AR the methodology is a ‘best guess’

because the research plan is developed collaboratively with participants and through the cyclical

process of planning, acting, observing and reflecting, it may change over the course of the project

(Herr & Anderson, 2005). As AR is a process that is achieved over time, one can begin their

project in more conventional ways and gradually embrace more collaboration and participation as

the research evolves (Greenwood & Leven, 2007).

My mental model, which is more interpretive as opposed to mechanistic or organismic,

both models which tend to be more traditional. Mechanistic models are based on the belief that

world can be understood completely through analysis, that by dividing a system into its’ parts and

explaining the behaviour of each part, we can somehow understand the whole; however, that only

contributes to our knowledge of how the system works, not how it functions (Gharajdaghi &

57
 58

Ackoff, 1984). Organismic models are concerned primarily with survival and growth, and unlike

social systems organisms have no need for consensus. A social system on the other hand, is

dependent on the behaviour of all the other parts and essential elements of the system are lost

when it is taken apart (Gharajdaghi & Ackoff, 1984).

In fact, Gharajdaghi and Ackoff go one step further and suggest that it is imperative that

we aim to understand social systems and do not aim to develop their members. This concept is

and has been a personal concern of mine since I began my doctoral work. This perspective

strongly influences my positionality. Within the sport context, coaches and even the system itself,

claim to develop athletes. Yet, growth and development are not synonymous, and not even

necessarily associated. We can have one without the other (Gharajdaghi & Ackoff, 1984).

Growth occurs naturally, while development infers a process of increased abilities to satisfy one’s

own needs and those of others, and it involves motivation, information, knowledge,

understanding and wisdom. Development is about quality of life and the desire and capacity to

improve one’s, and others’, quality of life (Gharajdaghi & Ackoff, 1984). In other words,

development is about the process of self-actualization. As such, we can develop systems that

focus on the encouragement and facilitation of its’ members’ development, but not the other way

around.

Therefore, I am not neutral. I am hopeful about the positive changes SF coaching might

have on the systems and discourses that currently influence coach communication behaviours and

athlete development. At the same time, I am conscious of the selected methods and philosophies

that inform this research as well as my own deeply held beliefs of the sport system (Stringer,

2014; Watson & Watson, 2011). As a certified SF coach and action researcher, it is my belief that

a participative, collaborative approach to inquiry guided by humanistic values and practice, can

change the traditional hegemony of sport coaching prevalent in sport practice today. And

58
 59

consistent with both AR and SF practice, is the understanding that individuals (or communities,

or organizations, or teams) are the experts of their own experience and we must assume that they

have the resources and capabilities to develop their own solutions. I also believe using a coaching

model, as opposed to an education model (proposed by some researchers; Nelson, Cushion,

Potrac, & Groom, 2014), to facilitate coach learning and development through the adoption of

SFC skills, will improve coach communication behaviours, which in turn will positively impact

the self-actualization processes of athletes.

Working together with the coaches and athletes of this team to learn the principles and

tools of SF, will lead to discoveries of specific language strategies that change the way coaches’

coach and ultimately, I hope, to the way they learn to coach. Subsequently, the self-actualizing

tendencies of the athletes will be enhanced, as a result. I want to disrupt and challenge the sport

discourses that we have been conditioned to accept as normal and necessary.

However, researchers must justify their methodological and method choices as the best

means of reflecting their research questions and to provide a framework from which others may

be able to assess the quality of the work (Smith & Heshusius, 1985). In other words, the

methodologies and methods must contribute logically to the research process and data collection

that the research question directs.

In the following section, I describe how my ontological and epistemological

understanding of this action research project informs my methodology and positionality as a

humanistic coach. I also introduce the concept of a critical friend.

Ontology and Epistemology

Prior to deciding upon the methodology, which is most simply described as the approach

or strategy used to best ask and answer the research questions (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), the

59
 60

researcher often adopts a worldview that in turn supports a theoretical lens with which the

methodology aligns. As mentioned previously, the methodology of AR is at the outset, often a

best guess (Herr & Anderson, 2005) and will most certainly evolve; however, Greenwood and

Levin (2007) believed that a researcher must have a participatory world view to support a

participatory methodology.

Vidal (2008) posited that a series of six questions helps us to define our world view: (a)

What is reality? (ontology); (b) where does it all come from? (explanation); (c) where are we

going? (prediction); (d) what is good and what is evil? (axiology); (e) how should we act?

(praxeology); (f) what is true and what is false? (epistemology). Reason (1998) suggested a world

view depends on the answers to three questions, the ontological question (what is the nature and

form of reality, and what can be known about it?); the epistemological question (what is the

relationship between the knower and what can be known?); and the methodological question

(how can the inquirer go about finding out what she believes can be known about?). He then

added an axiological question, that enquires about the intrinsic value of human life and the sort of

knowledge that is valuable.

The participative world view, according to Reason (1998), presupposes a given cosmos

and primordial reality with which humanity actively participates. He described it as a co-creative

dance, and reality is the outcome of the interaction with a given cosmos and the way the mind

engages with it. Reality is subjective-objective, always being shaped by the participation of the

knower and what is known. Epistemologically, there are at least four various ways of knowing, or

extended epistemology (Reason, 1998). The first is experiential knowing, which is through direct

face-to-face- interactions with people, places or things, involves empathy and resonance, and is

often difficult to express. The second is presentational knowing, which arises from experiential

knowing and is expressed through forms of imagery (poetry, story, drawing, movement). The

60
 61

third is propositional knowing, which is knowing something about something such as ideas and

theory, and is expressed in abstract language or mathematics. The fourth is practical knowing,

which is knowing how to do something and is expressed through a skill or competence. Finally,

axiologically, supporters of the participative worldview assert that the purpose of knowledge is

practical and involves human flourishing. Reason suggested that we are more profoundly

engaged in our worlds when we are concerned with enhancing them, not simply learning about

them.

Part of the task of a doctoral dissertation is to fill a ‘knowledge gap’, or create new

knowledge (Herr & Anderson, 2005), hence the need to understand the ‘ologies’ and their

interrelatedness. For me, however, it is more important and more consistent with an AR

approach, to aim for understanding. Russel Ackoff (1989) described the difference between

knowledge and understanding: “An ounce of information is worth a pound of data. An ounce of

data is worth a pound of knowledge. An ounce of understanding is worth a pound of knowledge”

(p.3).

Ackoff (1989) elaborated in a manner that, for me, unites the humanistic principles of SF

practice and AR: data are simply symbols that represent the properties of objects and events;

while information is processed data (with a functional, not a structural difference); knowledge is

conveyed by instructions (answers to how-to questions); and understanding is conveyed by

explanation and answers to why questions. Intelligence, he says, is the ability to improve

efficiency, while wisdom is the ability to increase effectiveness. While efficiency is associated

with growth, growth itself does not require an increase in value. Development, on the other hand,

denotes an increase in value as well as, understanding, knowledge and information. Wisdom,

therefore, expresses the exercise of judgement, understanding and values – “there are great

subtleties in the collection of data and its’ conversion into information, knowledge” (p.4).

61
 62

Bradbury (2015) also reminded us of the Aristotelian notion that knowledge moves toward

wisdom and ethical action.

Methodology

Methodology is a theoretical understanding of how a research question might be answered

and the strategy used to design the study based on that theoretical understanding (Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2009). In this section, it is my intention to provide the methodological theory and

methods logic for this research project.

A paradigm can be defined as a “set of interrelated assumptions about the social world

which provides a philosophical and conceptual framework for the organized study of the world”

(Ponterotto, 2005, p.127). Action researchers generally work within what is known as a

pragmatist paradigm (Bradbury, 2010; Greenwood, 2015) which comes from an interpretative

framework (Creswell, 2013). The interpretive approach is described by Neuman (1997) as

“trying to arrive at understandings and interpretations of how people create and maintain their

social worlds” (p.68), while pragmatism is described by Creswell (2013) as a focus on the

outcomes of research as opposed to the precipitating conditions. There is less of a focus on

methods, and more of a focus on the problem being studied and the questions being asked around

the problem (a focus on questions supports the SF perspective). Although typically, pragmatism

is not associated with any particular philosophical perspective, in the case of AR, we are

committed to a participatory worldview, as outlined earlier. However, Greenwood (2015)

suggested that without pragmatic action, there is no change or meaningful, sustainable theoretical

learning, in fact, he rejects any radical separation between ontology and epistemology.

Our paradigmatic framework often helps determine what we, as researchers, constitute as

knowledge (Smith & Heshusius, 1986) and the ‘goodness’ of such research (Marrow, 2005). Due

62
 63

to the interpretivist nature and specific aims of action research, researchers often argue for a

mixed methods/pluralistic approach to inquiry (Bradbury, 2010; 2015; Greenwood & Levin,

2007; Ortiz & Castillo-Burguete, 2015) and to “move away from the hidden assumptions and

conceptual traps in planning research to ensure that [they] do not bring existing baggage of

traditional approaches to the study” (Watson & Watson, 2011, p.68). Similarly, several

researchers appeal for a dialectic stance when conducting critical research and/or evaluations

(Greene, 2012; Greene, Benjamin, & Goodyear, 2001; Johnson & Stefurak, 2013). These

researchers suggested that a dialectic stance also allows the mixing of worldviews, disciplines,

theories, methods, methodologies, as well as citizen perspectives (Greene, 2013; Greene & Hall,

2010; Johnson & Stefurak, 2013). It helps to be reminded that “credible evidence is a construct,

shaped differently by different assumptions about social reality, social knowledge,” (Greene,

2013, p.113).

Researchers with a dialectic stance are comfortable with ambiguity and remain open to

surprises and results that may seem paradoxical, because this stance permits us to attend

meaningfully to differences that are revealed in the study. Such a perspective aligns with the

fundamental principle of ‘not knowing’ in solution-focused practice. Bradbury (2010) referred to

“the dialectics of knowledge creation” (p. 106) and suggested that action researchers bring this

perspective into the core of our work. With regards to my study, this means that I can collaborate

with both coaches and athletes and allow for their different perspectives to emerge/merge - or

not. Such a stance allows the researcher to better capture the complexity of our humanness and

social/political systems (Greene, 2012).

Greene also asserted that “good social inquiry becomes dialogic, pluralistic and

consequential” (p.770), while Fine (2006) suggested that a standard for social research is whether

or not the work moves the reader to act. Similarly, credible evidence is considered a holistic set

63
 64

of evidence produced by multiple social-political and epistemological viewpoints where claims

are warranted in a “multiparadigmatic, multidisciplinary, multistandpoint, multistakholder

environment” (Johnson & Stefurak, 2013, p.47) and represent local context - a bottom-up driven

approach that contributes to our general knowledge. Finally, there must be a fit between the

mental model and the project that is affirmed by a comprehensiveness of view and narrative value

(Smith, 1997). Perhaps Dilthey (as cited in Wertz, 2001) said it best: "We explain nature, we

understand psychic life" (p. 233).

From an AR perspective, the value of the work is often judged by the participants

themselves, the tacit and explicit knowledge that is generated and how it is validated through the

process of action and reflection, as well as, the consistency of the project with the values

presented by the researcher (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009). Others might say, its’ worth is in the

generation of local knowledge (Bradbury, 2010). However, the study’s value lies in the

development of practical knowledge that can help to inform future coaching practice, as well as,

the understanding (development) that participants experience through their participation.

As mentioned, a paradigm can be described as the assumptions associated with a world-

view (Mertens, 2003). Researchers use many different paradigms to guide their research and

practice (Ponterotto, 2005), and within the humanistic and psychology literature, the

compatibility of paradigms and methods is often debated (Smith, 1997; Wertz, 2001) because

according to Smith (1997), some methodologists feel that methods belong to philosophical

systems. However, a more holistic metaphor for theories and paradigms is their conceptualization

as “webs of beliefs” (Johnson, 2008, p.205).

Habermas, someone who has been extremely influential in AR (Greenwood, 2015),

posited that knowledge and human interest are inseparable (Herr & Anderson, 2005). He also

rejected objectivism as the sole route to valid knowledge and suggested there are three distinct

64
 65

types of knowledge generation, each having its’ own associated methodology. The first is

technical and involves the human aspiration to control the natural and social realms. The

associated methodology is characterized by an objective, disinterested stance and usually

generates causal explanations. The second type of knowledge generation is practical, where the

researcher is interested in understanding through interpretation and as such, the methodologies

are interpretive and hermeneutic. The third type of knowledge generation, according to

Habermas, is emancipatory, which involves the emergence of human potential and the

investigation of power; and the “goal is to emancipate participants from the dictates or

compulsions of tradition, precedent, habit, coercion or self-deception” (p.27). The methodologies

are transformative and emancipatory. With regard to AR then, any and all of these types of

knowledge generation and their associated methodologies are common, however, it must be part

of on-going critical reflection (Herr & Anderson, 2005). And, equally important is the idea that

AR involves all participants, including the researcher, in a process of self-discovery.

Collaborative inquiry is not only a different way of conducting research, but it requires the

researcher to live in the world as different kind of person as well (Greenwood & Levin, 2007).

Again, this resonates strongly for me due to the congruence between this perspective and the

solution-focused/humanistic perspective where concepts of unconditional positive regard and

leading from behind, also require us to live differently in the world because it is impossible to

hold these values and disregard notions of democracy, understanding, and development.

Reason (1998) then, called for a collaborative methodology, where everyone is committed

to democratic dialogue as co-researchers and co-subjects. He suggested that in this type of

inquiry everyone works together using the four ways of knowing: they define questions for

exploration and discuss methods to use for that exploration (propositional knowing); this is

applied in their world of practice (practical knowing); which leads to new understanding

65
 66

(experiential knowing); and finally, they find ways to represent and share their experience and

knowledge (presentational knowing). Interestingly, Reason’s collaborative methodology

dovetails nicely with Habermas’ concept of knowledge generation, as well as, Kolb’s’ model of

experiential learning (2005) used to explain coach learning and development, which also follows

a cyclical process of four stages of grasping and transforming experience.

Therefore, the methodological strategy that informs my methods is that of pragmatism, a

collaborative, experiential inquiry that reflects the multi-stakeholder environment and aims for

practical, emancipatory knowledge and ways of knowing.

Positionality

Intimately tied to methodology in AR is the concept of positionality, which is a term that

locates the researcher in the research process. In this section, I explain the significance of

positionality within AR research, as well as, my personal positionality within this study. The

clarity of one’s positionality influences many research choices, including validity and ethics

(Herr & Anderson, 2005). As such, it is important that I am clear.

In AR, a researcher can have an insider or outsider perspective. An insider denotes a

person or persons within the organization or community who conducts the research and an

outsider is someone from outside the community or organization who initiates and/or conducts

the research (Coghlan & Shani, 2015). Herr & Anderson (2005) presented an insider/outsider

continuum where the far left, at position one, is insider research where the researcher studies

his/her own self and is often represented by autobiographies and narrative studies. At position

two, there is insider in collaboration with other insiders, where insiders work together with others

in the setting as a way to do research with a greater impact. This type of work is often represented

by feminist perspectives and inquiry/study groups. At position three, is insider(s) in collaboration

66
 67

with outsiders, where insiders invite or contract outsiders to collaborate, and this format often

uses inquiry/study groups as well. In position four, there is reciprocal collaboration or insider-

outsider teams – this is sometimes positioned as the most ideal form of PAR and is represented

by collaborative forms of PAR that emphasize equal power relations amongst collaborators.

Position five is outsider-insider research, where an outsider(s) collaborates with insiders to

influence and or monitor change. Sometimes this is seen as more mainstream applied science and

closer even to consultancy. Finally, at position six, is the outsider studying insiders which Herr

and Anderson (2005) suggested is our most common form of university-based academic research.

The earliest AR was almost always initiated by an outsider, and the challenge was how to

more involve the insiders (Herr & Anderson, 2005). Bradbury (2010) suggests that as we evolve

as action researchers perhaps insiders will be invited more often to control the action research

process. However, Herr and Anderson pointed out that positionality also considers the

researcher’s position within the setting, especially with regard to power and social/organizational

hierarchy. They also suggested that asking the following questions will provide important clues

about positionality: who am I in the research process?; what do I bring in terms of roles, values,

beliefs and experiences?; where I am I on the continuum?; and where am I with regard to status

and hierarchy?

At the beginning of the study, I positioned my research at close to a five (outsider-insider

research) on the continuum because I initiated the research project with the Interuniversity sport

team members. However, the team requested an embedded consultant for the 2016 year, so that

provided an opportunity for the project to shift toward a more collaborative framework.

Interestingly, Whyte (as cited in Herr & Anderson, 2005) believed that researchers should take

their time, getting to know and understand the culture, work, and organizational systems before

establishing full partnerships. Certainly, at the outset I was an outsider and quality outsider AR

67
 68

projects depend on relationships (Herr & Anderson, 2005). In SF practice, we call this rapport.

As a SF coach my first task is to take whatever time is needed (and available) to establish rapport.

When the project began in the summer of 2017, I was uncertain about my status within

the team. Yet, as we moved through the AR cycles, my presence within the team became

normalized and I was able to build a deep rapport with the head coach and an assistant coach. The

project evolved into an insider/insider collaboration, a position two on Herr and Anderson’s

continuum. More of this process and evolution is described in detail in the results and discussion

sections that follow.

Another important aspect of positionality is the consideration of how the researcher’s

personal narrative shapes their perspective and how they approach their work (Foote & Bartell,

2011). For example, how do race, class, life experiences, gender and sexuality influence the

researcher’s choice of methods, methodology, and questions. Therefore, it is considered best

practice to be transparent about what might influence research choices (Denzin, 1986; Foote &

Bartell, 2011). Additionally, insider research is about access, and to gain access to specialized

communities, insider researchers often have an intimate knowledge of the community through

previous experience that an outsider does not (Labaree, 2002). This privileges the insider

researcher. Consequently, it is important that the reader understand what privileged my access.

Firstly, I did have previous experience coaching other female inter-university coaches and

the athletes whom they coached. The results with these other teams were positive and noteworthy

and as such, established some legitimacy, my reputation preceded me to a certain extent.

Secondly, I was married to an extremely successful professional athlete and during that time I

worked with a National Olympic sport team as a soigneur (a massage therapist who is responsible

for the cyclists' physical wellbeing). This type of intimate knowledge of elite sport, most likely

enhanced my expertise, in the eyes of the coaches at least. Finally, many years ago, I was the

68
 69

mother of a talented youth athlete, who lost his passion for organized sport, in part, due to poor

coaches. These experiences influenced how I was perceived by the coaches and athletes, and

coloured how I perceived them. In other words, I was not looking through rose- coloured glasses.

At this point, it may also be valuable to explain my choice of writing style. I mention

earlier that the paper oscillates between a first-person perspective and a more formal neutral

perspective, with more of an emphasis on the first-person perspective. I have deliberately and

consciously written myself into the research, due to the self-reflective nature of AR (Herr &

Anderson, 2005). This style of writing includes self-mention, affect, and attitude. Affect is

expressed by what Hyland (2008) calls boosters, which express certainty and may include terms

such as ‘importantly’ and ‘significantly.’ Attitude is expressed with phrases or statements which

express a state of being such as ‘I believe’ and ‘I feel.’ Self-mention and personal reference

allows researchers to emphasize their own contributions and as long as this type of writing is

consistent with the research methods - which it is in this case - these are considered acceptable

means of expressing one’s perspective and research (Hyland, 2008). Indeed, writing in this style

allows me to more effectively express and understand how I answer the questions posed by Herr

and Anderson (2005) mentioned above: who am I in the research process?; what do I bring in

terms of roles, values, beliefs and experiences?; where I am I on the continuum?; and where am I

with regard to status and hierarchy? The answers become evident through the writing.

As a final thought, it is valuable to note in terms of positionality, that the research

question, at least to begin with, was also mine. The participants (the coaches) were not so much

asking a question, as they were demanding an outcome; and the athletes were (in the beginning)

participants by default, due to power structures created by the sport discourses of coach authority

and athlete compliance. Notwithstanding the fact that I was offering both a service and an

intervention as the coach/facilitator and the researcher, it was for our mutual benefit. Throughout

69
 70

the course of the project, I strove to have my colleagues (participants) contribute to the formation

of our goals and objectives. The AR process strengthened this collaboration and process, and

ultimately contributed to our success.

The Critical Friend

Another concept that is commonly used, and recommended, as part of an AR project, is

that of critical friend (Herr & Anderson, 2005) – an individual who is independent, yet a

professional colleague (Fetterman, 2015; Handal, 1999). According to Handal (1999), a critical

friend is a real friend, someone who can hold a mirror up to your practice, someone whose

professional competency and integrity you trust, and perhaps most importantly, is someone who

will collaborate with you and provide feedback. McNiff and Whitehead (2009) suggested critical

friends can help to validate your research because they act as witnesses who can confirm or

disconfirm your research process. They can also provide moral support, as well as, sources of

data/evidence. The term was first recommended by Stenhouse (1975), and Kembler and

colleagues (1997), asserted that a critical friend is a partner who can give advice to the action

researcher during the research process. They stressed that critical friends are not consultants, but

truly friends and they should help to enhance the reflective learning of the coach/researcher, as

well as, help the researcher to maintain her autonomy in constructing knowledge related to her

practice. A critical friend is considered` a true outsider to the research process. In doctoral

research supervisors or committee members often take on the role of critical friend (Wetzel &

Ewbank, 2013), however my supervisors and committee members were unfamiliar with AR and

SFC, which meant that they lacked the expertise required for the role and as a result, I elected to

use my friend and colleague.

70
 71

When I began this project, I invited a long-time friend and fellow SF coach to be my

critical friend. CF and I have been friends for decades. We have been professional colleagues for

four years, since we both became certified as solution-focused coaches. CF is the epitome of a

critical friend, able to hold up that mirror, to ask tough questions, to know when to silently

observe, and when it’s necessary to have a voice, to provide support and sometimes direction,

and above all, to bring integrity and professionalism to every context.

CF is also an excellent SF coach. I know this because we shared our supervisory

experience as novice coaches, and I have since shared coaching sessions with him. However, it is

the way he lives in the world that best expresses his commitment to SF and AR principles. CF

approaches every person he meets with an inherent democracy and respect, he never veers from

the path of self-actualization, and is wholly committed to honouring autonomy and self-

actualization processes of others.

Before the project began we had a lengthy conversation about what his role as a critical

friend might entail – this being new to both of us. Of course, as I suspected, he was excited about

the opportunity. I suggested the role might include: attending SF workshops for coaches and/or

athletes as an observer, acting as an observer at some games/practices, sharing notes that he has

taken, helping to confirm or disconfirm evidence, and coaching me. As it turns out, he did a little

of all these tasks, but to a much lesser degree than originally planned.

As the project developed and we went through the cyclical process of planning, acting,

observing and reflecting, I made a new critical friend. We’ll call her AC (assistant coach) because

she was one of the team’s assistant coaches. The evolution of her role as critical friend is

described in detail in the results and discussion sections.

71
 72

Methods

The term ‘methods’ has several definitions (Smith & Heshusius, 1985). In the first - and

perhaps most common - sense, it is considered a set of procedures or techniques used to collect

data. In the second sense, it is the logic that helps to justify the practice of one’s research.

Greenwood (2015) proposed that the term bricolage, a term he attributes to Levi-Strauss, best

represents the role of the action researcher concerning methods because it permits the bricoleur

(researcher) to use a variety of methods in her collaborative efforts with stakeholders to solve

problems and move forward. This perspective is found throughout AR literature and I certainly

aim to illustrate my talents as a bricoleur throughout the course of this project.

In this segment, I provide a description of the procedures and design elements that helped

to shape the evolution of the project. First, there is an explication of the procedures, followed by

my case study research design that includes a characterization of the context and participants.

Finally, I present the data analysis strategies for the coaches, followed by the athletes. In the real-

world, coaches and athletes work together to create the cultural narratives that shape their world.

However, for the sake of this study, there are two data sets. One contains data from and about the

coaches, the other contains data from and about the athletes. They could be considered concurrent

studies, where those of us situated as coaching staff were continually moving through cycles of

action and reflection to ‘get the best out of the athletes’; and athletes, whether they were aware or

not, were continually responding to, and influencing, those cycles. Nevertheless, to answer my

research questions, I analyzed all athlete data at the end of season.

As is common with all research studies, mine began with an ethics application that was

approved by the university’s independent ethics review board in April of 2017. Once I received

ethics approval, I had the coaches, my critical friend, and the athletes, sign letters of consent and

complete demographic questionnaires (Appendices A and B for questionnaires; Appendices C, D

72
 73

and E for consent letters). This process was carefully considered due to the nature of the study.

Specifically, as this was an AR study and such an approach considers the participants as

collaborators, we needed to determine a process by which to include the athletes. Further, as the

head coach decided to include her team in this study, I considered whether or not the athletes

really had a choice as to whether they participated or not? To address this concern, I presented

the study outline to the athletes prior to a practice, without the coaches present. Following my

presentation, I gave them each a Letter of Consent, I asked them to read it carefully and stated

that if they had any questions, they could contact me directly, without any fear of repercussions.

A week later, the Assistant Coach collected the forms from the athletes, confirming with them

that were okay with participating. The athletes did not express any concerns to me or the AC.

Concerns about coercion of athletes’ participation in the study was also addressed on an

on-going basis throughout the study. The Assistant Coach (AC), my CF and I carefully monitored

this dilemma, paying close attention to the athletes’ voices and participation. All athlete

interviews were reviewed individually by AC and myself, then again, collaboratively. At any sign

of an athlete struggling in any way (for example, exhibiting signs of stress or anxiety) it was

immediately addressed by AC, HC, myself. They were reminded of resources available to all

athletes, support services and even coupled with a team buddy. In some ways, our study

accomplished the provision of supports naturally with our SF communication and practice. This

was evident in the athlete interviews, where they were able to respond to questions that helped

them to identify their own strengths and resources, and to differentiate themselves from dominant

coaching discourses. The enhancement of their self-actualizing processes was a study aim and

focus, therefore, our attention to coercion was vigilant. In spite of these ongoing and deliberate

efforts to ensure the autonomy of the athlete in choosing to participate in this study, it is

important to acknowledge the potential influences outside of my control as a researcher that may

73
 74

have contributed to athletes’ feeling they were not completely free to decline or withdraw from

participation.

Procedures

I begin with a brief outline of AR principles and procedures to emphasize the deep

commitment I have to this process, which provides not only a theoretical framework, but a

practical one as well. Following the AR outline, I chronicle the procedures of this study, using

the action-reflection process as a structure.

Guiding Principles. Action research (AR) is an orientation toward research (H.

Bradbury, personal communication, July 20, 2016), it is not a methodology, nor is it a method

(Greenwood, 2015). In fact, Greenwood (2015) referred to AR as a strategy for using various

theories and methods, including both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Bradbury,

2010), for the purpose of influencing democratic, social change. Bradbury’s (2010) description of

AR focused more on the orientation toward knowledge creation, which emerged when

researchers and practitioners work reflexively and collaboratively in the real world to accomplish

common goals. Similarly, Stringer (2014) described AR as a flexible and practical set of

procedures that are systematic, cyclical and solutions oriented, as well as (of course)

participatory. These systematic and cyclical procedures are often depicted as a four-stage process,

originally attributed to Lewin (Herr & Anderson, 2005), that involves planning, acting,

observing, and reflecting (Tripp, 2005).

Study Procedures - Coaches. As mentioned, this study began with ethics approval. Once

I received ethics approval, HC, AC and I met several times between April and July of 2017 to

plan the season and create an itemized agenda of work tasks and events. We spoke about the

nature of AR, that I considered them to be co-researchers and even though I did have a research

74
 75

agenda and was required to meet certain research obligations, I wanted them to help direct the

work and what we accomplished. I outlined the mental model I had loosely developed, dividing

the season into four AR cycles that included; pre-season, in-season, post season and coach

retreat/review. Everyone agreed that this made sense. I kept detailed notes of all meetings, events

and personal insights. I also kept files of all email and text messages and any artifacts produced

during team events. Elements of these cycles are summarized in Table 1.

75
 76

Table 1
Action Research Cycles

Cycle Action Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4

June- August September - December January - March Coach Retreat

• Included HC, AC • Team retreat • Entwined with • Planned a 2-day

• Collectively preparations formal reflection coach retreat
decided season • Involving HC, at end of first half • Agenda for HC,
goals and AC, myself of season AC
Planning
objectives • Created a focus • Agenda for all
• Scheduled goals and best practices support staff
and objectives for second half of
season

• I delivered 6 SF • Coaches worked • 3rd round of • Summary

coach learning hard to implement athlete interviews interview with HC
sessions (90mins) principles and conducted by AC and AC
practices • Continued weekly • Summary meeting
• Competition reflections with with support staff
began in October HC and AC to review past
Acting
• Implemented • Implemented season and goals
weekly reflection AAR and objectives for
meetings with HC • Team building upcoming season
• 2 rounds of athlete
interviews
conducted by AC

• All coaches tried • I attended every • Continued to • Notes and

to implement their home game and attend all home recordings from
new SF skills over many away games games and some interviews
Observing
summer practice • Attended pre, half away games
and post-game
talks

76
 77

Cycle Action Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4

June- August September - December January - March Coach Retreat

• HC and AC held
each other
accountable

• Practiced • Retreat summary • Weekly • The entire focus

reflecting during • Weekly reflections with of the retreat was
learning sessions, reflections with HC and AC to reflect deeply
• Reflected on HC - sometimes • AC and I also on what we
previous AC reflected post- accomplished and
Reflecting
workshops and • Formal review games how to keep
what they were with HC and AC • Provided SF momentum
doing in practice at end of transcripts for moving forward
December reflection • We planned a
team trip to Italy

77
 78

Study Procedures – Athletes. Following ethics approval, all of the athletes completed

demographic questionnaires and letters of consent (Appendices B and D). The athletes had only

two AR cycles. It is essential to note that whenever possible, over the course of this entire season,

I avoided working with the athletes directly (except in special circumstances such as the team

retreat and team building exercises); instead, I coached the AC and HC on their interactions. I

made this choice because it was the coaches’ skills that I was focused on influencing and

amplifying, and in the future it would be their skills that the athletes needed, not mine. As a

result, the AC conducted all four one-on-one interviews sessions with the athletes, as well as, the

AAR sessions. I led the team retreat and the team building exercise.

AR Cycle One. The first cycle began September 2017 and ended December 2017.

Planning. In this phase, the planning involved working with the athletes to prepare for the

team retreat, which I led. I worked closely with the HC and AC to plan athlete interviews, team

building events.

Acting. At the beginning of the retreat each athlete group conducted and recorded a group

discussion using four questions that were designed to give us a benchmark of their hopes for the

season, perceptions of the coach, strengths they’ve developed and their personal development

(Appendix J). These conversations were recorded and transcribed verbatim. I kept journal notes

about the retreat itself. The AC conducted two rounds of one-on-one interviews with the athletes.

We worked collaboratively, using the Measure of Actualizing Potential (MAP; Lerclerc et al.,

1998) to develop a semi-structure interview guide (Appendix K). These interviews were recorded

and some, not all, were transcribed verbatim because there was simply too much data for me to

manage for this project. Therefore, I selected four athletes, with the advice of the AC (one first

year, one third year, one fourth year and one fifth year) to follow over the course of the season. I

felt that having one athlete from each year of experience provided a broad oversight of

78
 79

experience. All the interviews of these athletes were transcribed verbatim. Although not all of the

recordings were transcribed, they were listened to multiple times by myself, the AC and the HC

and we discussed them and I made notes. During this cycle, I also led one team building event

which is described in the results and discussion section.

Observing. I observed the athletes at games and made notes regarding my perceptions of

how they responded to the behaviour of the HC. The HC and AC observed the athletes at

practices as well as games and we discussed these observations at our weekly meetings.

Reflecting. The AC provided the HC with both the recordings and the transcripts of the

athlete interviews. In this way, the HC was able to reflect on the athlete’s progress in more

intimate manner. As a coaching staff, we met several times a month either formally or informally

to discuss athletes’ progress.

AR Cycle Two. This cycle began in mid-December and ended April 2018.

Planning. The HC, AC and I met prior to the holidays to reflect and plan for the second

half of the season. I worked with the AC to develop an interview guide for the third and fourth

round of athlete interviews (Appendices L and M). During this cycle, a team graduation event

was planned for several graduating players.

Acting. The AC conducted two rounds athlete interviews, one in January and one at the

end of March. The AC implemented an After-Action-Review (AAR) process that was conducted

with the athletes following the post-game talk by the HC. All the AAR sessions were recorded

and notes made, with some transcribed verbatim. At the end of the season, the HC conducted

one-on-one interviews with all the athletes. Her notes were shared with the coaching staff.

Observing. I continued to observe players at games, and some practices. The HC, AC also

continued to monitor and observe the athletes. We compared notes at weekly meetings.

79
 80

Reflecting. Again, the HC was given the transcripts of the athlete interviews conducted by

the AC. I spent an inordinate amount of time with the AC reflecting on the progress of the

athletes.

Critical Friends

As mentioned earlier in this document, the role of the critical friend is to hold up a mirror

to the researcher’s practice. My CF, also an expert SF coach, challenged and coached me

throughout this process. When I became discouraged by the lack of HC’s progress, rather than

commiserate, he asked what I could be doing differently, as the team headed into the new year.

He remained entirely solution focused and encouraged me to concentrate on HC’s strengths and

resources, instead of her weaknesses. He helped me to find small examples of where she had

been successful and asked me how I could be doing more of that. He attended games and we

discussed the implications of different approaches. Finally, he reviewed my analysis and

interpretation of how SFC was influencing her behaviour. He did the same for all the athlete data.

This was no small contribution.

AC, my second and unplanned critical friend assumed a different role. Rather than

challenge me, she became more of a cheerleader; although, this was also a role I played for her.

We dissected every game, always with the same intention. How do we best support HC? What

worked, why did it work? What did she do well? How did the athletes respond? Then, in the new

year, she began implementing the AARs. We reviewed every recording thoroughly and

collaboratively, identifying the gains that the athletes were making, noticing how their responses

were changing. Then she shared these insights and observations with HC with the hope that these

small positive changes would inspire her efforts to change her coaching and communication. She

80
 81

recorded and transcribed many athlete interviews, in an effort to reinforce her own SF learning

and skills. It was an intense partnership.

Both of these individuals contributed in critical ways to the success of this project and

strongly influenced my analysis and interpretations of the findings as well as my practice. As

such, they both also helped to ensure the trustworthiness of the data - another role often ascribed

to the critical friend (Rallis & Rossman, 2009). Critical friends help to validate data, analysis and

interpretations by becoming an “intellectual watchdog” (pg. 269) of sorts - a function both of my

critical friends assumed.

An overview of the study design, including interventions and timelines are illustrated in

Figure 1.

81
 82

AR Cycle Four
AR Cycle Two

Weekly
1st Round Coffee 2nd Post Final
Athlete Chats Team Season Game Athlete
Coach Began Building Review AAR
Interviews Interview
Learning

Team 2nd Round 1st 3rd Coach

Retreat Athlete Season Weekly Athlete Retreat/
Interviews Review Wonderment Interview Season
Review
AR Cycle One
AR Cycle Three

August September October November December January February March

Figure 1. Process Implementation

Note: AR represents Action Research

82
 83

The Case Study

Yin (2014) submitted that an embedded case design represents a mixed-method form of

research because this design relies on holistic data collection strategies to capture both the main

case (coaching behaviours in this study) and the embedded units of analysis (athletes in this

study). A case study, according to Creswell (2012), is the study of a case within a real-life

bounded system that is constrained by time and place. However, a more detailed definition of a

case study is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-

life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly

evident” (Yin, 2003, p.13). Yin (2003), like Creswell (2012), noted that some researchers do not

consider the case study to be a methodology, but a method of qualitative research. Although both

Yin and Creswell defend the case study as a methodology, Yin asserts that the case study is not

limited to a qualitative research approach, but can include and be founded on any combination of

quantitative and qualitative evidence.

Case studies are especially useful when the researcher is attempting to answer ‘how’ or

‘why’ questions, as this methodology is typically explanatory or descriptive in nature (Creswell,

2012; Yin, 2003), although Yin (2003) also stated that case studies are useful for evaluation

purposes (Yin, 2014). In fact, Yin (2014) suggested that case study research permits researchers

to maintain a holistic and real-world perspective, as well as provide the means to understand

complex social phenomena. As a result, case studies are popular research strategies in

psychology and sociology because they provide researchers the opportunity to gain greater

insight to and understanding of individuals, groups, organizations and phenomena related to

contexts of particular circumstances (Creswell, 2012; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Yin, 2003).

83
 84

The case study design aligns with my mental model for many reasons. Firstly, it is useful

for evaluations and it helps to describe an intervention contextually, in the real world, especially

in those situations where there are no defined set of outcomes (Yin, 2014). This is congruent with

an AR approach to my project, since I began with no specific set of outcomes, other than best

hopes; additionally, AR always takes place in the real world and describes people’s lived

experiences (Stringer, 2014).

The embedded design helped to focus the study, allowing for important analytical

opportunities by using different data collection methods for each particular element under

investigation (Yin, 2014), which for me included the communication behaviours of coaches and

any associated self-actualization effects of the athletes. Yin warned, however, that the researcher

must not study the sub-units at the expense of the case, and therefore an essential element of case

study work is clearly defining the case itself. Therefore, as a starting point, I defined the case as

the communication behaviours of coaches – the head coach and assistant coach – and the sub-

units of analysis, or embedded units, as the athletes (although, ‘unit’ is a decidedly inappropriate

term with which to refer to athletes).

Using the coach communication of inter-university coaches with whom I already had a

relationship is a function of convenience and purposefulness – which is also often the case with

AR (Stringer, 2014). It was convenient because I had already made connections with coaches

who were both willing and enthusiastic about participating in such a project and purposeful

because such a case could help to answer the research questions.

Research Design

The research design has been described by some as the logical plan that guides the

researcher through the process required to answer the research questions and draw conclusions

84
 85

from the data collected (Yin, 2014). In the following sections, I endeavour to paint a picture of

key people, the nature of the team and environment, the needs and goals of the participants as

well as, a purpose and an idea of what is missing and why it might be missing (Stringer, 2014). I

then give a description of the procedures, measures and data analysis.

The Participants/Co-researchers

The participants of this project, in AR fashion, are considered co-researchers. When this

project began, the concept of participants as co-researchers was theoretical, an AR axiom;

however, as the year and our work together evolved, that concept became practice. In a broad

sense, there were two groups of co-researchers: the coaches and the athletes. More narrowly, I

worked most intimately with the head coach (HC) and one assistant coach (AC); however, when I

worked with the athletes, I worked with them as a group. The coaches and the athletes were part

of a women’s inter-university sport team at a large North American University. The sport and

participants’ names have been withheld to protect anonymity.

The Coaches. The coaching staff of the team included a HC, a lead assistant coach, and

four assistant coaches. One of the four assistant coaches identified as male, while everyone else

identifies as female. The HC is a very experienced coach, three of the assistant coaches were

novice coaches, while the fourth had an extensive coaching background.

The Athletes. There were14 female athletes on this team. Four of the athletes were

rookies, two players were in their second season, and eight were in their third to fifth seasons; all

athletes were between 18 - 22 years of age.

Context

At the macro scale, the context is a large, ethnically diverse, North American University,

in a large metropolitan city. At the meso level, the athletic department involves many sports.

85
 86

Finally, at the micro level, as mentioned, the team has 14 female players, a head coach and four

assistant coaches.

The athletic department provides the team with staff and student therapists, strength and

conditioning coaches, and limited access to a nutritionist. The coaching staff, team therapists, and

strength and conditioning coaches meet as a collaborative unit to monitor athlete development on

a regular basis. This team receives funding for league play, play-offs and exhibition matches, and

has 12-month training program with a full-time head and assistant coach. Fundraising is a

mandatory task for coaches and provides the players with footwear, uniforms, and outerwear.

Coaches report to the athletic director.

The athletes on this team were expected to train year-round, practice an average of 15

hours a week during the school year, play on average two games a week during season, maintain

their grades, make up classes and exams they miss while on the road, and meet the HC’s

expectations of arriving at practices and games with a positive and highly-competitive attitude.

The backstory context of this team is interesting and relevant because it is what brought

us together. I first met the coaches and some of the players near the end of their 2016-2017

season – one of their worst seasons in many years. The coaches and athletes were frustrated and

had no idea how to ‘fix’ the problems that were contributing to what they perceived as a toxic

environment. At one point near the end of that season, HC threatened to disband the team all

together. The players also did not know how to ‘fix’ the problems they were experiencing. I was

asked to work with a small group of athletes identified as leaders to facilitate their leadership

skills and help improve their team culture. We met on a bi-weekly basis, over a couple of months

and managed to influence some positive change but there was a lot of work to do if the next

season was going to be better. I conducted end-of-season interviews with all of the players to

develop a better understanding of the issues from individual perspectives. It was at this point the

86
 87

HC, AC and I discussed me working with the team for the 2017-2018 season as their mental

training coach – and as a researcher. This was the perfect collaboration. There was a very real,

practical and ethical purpose for this project beyond my own research requirements; everyone

involved, from the coaches to the athletes, wanted a positive cultural change. And, they were all

committed to doing the work to facilitate that change.

In the following section I provide a detailed explanation of the measures and procedures.

Intervention and Measures

While measures are tools to gather data and evaluate outcomes, intervention strategies are

the means by which the intervention is delivered. I begin by providing a description of the

intervention strategy, coach learning sessions, which is followed by an explanation of the

measures used.

Coach Learning Sessions. The purpose of these learning sessions was to provide the

coaches with an appreciation and understanding of how SF coaching skills can help them to

improve their coaching skills and help to facilitate enhanced development of their athletes.

There were six sessions designed to be approximately 90 minutes long, to provide coaches with

basic SF coaching skills and a good foundational understanding of the principles. Although the

SFC model is a simple model, it is not necessarily easy. It turns the manner in which coaches

communicate upside down. Instead of being directive, coaches ask questions; instead of being the

center of power and authority, coaches lead from behind; instead of being the sole decision

maker, coaches are collaborative; instead of focusing on what isn’t working (the problem),

coaches focus on what is working or what they would like to see instead (of the problem).

The learning sessions were developed as follows:

1. Lead with Questions

87
 88

• A small shift from telling to asking. When we ask questions, we get the athletes to

do the work, we are helping to develop autonomy, competence and confidence.

There are, of course, times, when as a coach, you need to be directive – when you

use these times wisely, they become more effective.

2. Reframing

• This is a critical skill. With this skill we can elevate affect, enhance reflection

skills, agency, confidence and competence. We learn to focus what we want

instead of the current problem, and how to behaviouralize change by noticing

differences between what is working and what is not working.

3. Feedback

• Perhaps one of the most impactful skills a coach can develop and from a SF

perspective feedback is not directive. The coach leads with questions and often

focuses on what the coaches wants to see more of.

4. Video Analysis – A new outcome

• What are they doing well? How will they do more of that? What else would they

like to improve?

5. Scaling

• Measuring improvements, individually and collectively

6. Relationships

• We are social beings and teams depend on collective engagement, wellbeing – in

fact, everything we do is about building relationships. We focused on asking

questions that embed relationship building, compassion, and perspective taking.

88
 89

Demographic Questionnaires. The demographic questionnaires provided information

such as date of birth, gender, years of experience, a solution-focused rating scale to assess their

satisfaction with the team and even GPA of athletes. Researchers have suggested that there may

be a relationship between athlete preference for a particular coaching style and academic

performance (Nizam, Fauzee, Jamalis, Geok, & Din., 2009).

Conversations. These conversations might be considered interviews within the context of

research, and initially, solution-focused practice was known as, Solution-Focused Brief

Interviewing; however, now the term conversation is used in both counseling and coaching

contexts. Conversation implies that there is equal distribution of expertise and power, and it is

more collaborative. As a result, I often use the term conversation instead of interviews.

Significantly, SF coaches approach every conversation with curiosity and a non-expert, or

not-knowing stance (Lipchik, 2002). This is important to me because throughout the duration of

this study, I aimed to remain as solution-focused as possible with the intervention participants.

For this reason, my conversations (interviews) remained unstructured and other-directed.

Marshall and Rossman (2011) referred (appropriately) to this type of qualitative interview as the

co-constructed or dialogic interview where the interviewer and interviewee generate new

meaning. Typically, in this type of interview, the interviewee produces more of the dialogue

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011), a finding confirmed by Tomori and Bavelas (2007).

Audio Recordings. Either the AC or I recorded all the pre, half and post-game talks of

the HC. All of the after action review conversations were recorded, as were many meetings

between the AC and me, and meetings between myself, the AC and the HC. Some meetings that

included the other coaching staff were also recorded. Many, but not all, the recordings were

transcribed verbatim. Some meetings/recordings were deemed less relevant, or repetitive;

however, all recordings were used for note taking and discussion. There were approximately 200

89
 90

minutes of pre/half/post time recordings, 72 minutes of after action review recordings, and 194

minutes of coach meeting recordings and approximately 90 pages of transcripts.

All athlete interviews were conducted by the AC and were audio recorded and transcribed

verbatim. At the beginning of the season, the athletes recorded group conversations that were

self-facilitated. These were also transcribed verbatim. In total there were 612 minutes of recorded

athlete interviews, 50 minutes of peer interview recordings, with 82 pages of transcriptions

Observations. I attended all home games and several away games where I observed

coaching and athlete behaviour. I attended pre, half and post-game talks during those games. I

also attended special team events. I took notes of the interactions between coaches and athletes as

well as between athletes and athletes, noting in particular: communication, language, verbal and

non-verbal responses as well as, evidence of positive change. Within these contexts, I was

looking for evidence that the coaches were using SF skills and what impact, if any, these changes

in communication were having in regard to athlete performance and behaviour.

Survey Measures. To provide a framework for the peer interviews, I used elements from

the sub-themes of the Revised Leadership Scale for Sport (RLSS; Zhang, Jenson & Mann, 1996;

Appendix O), allowing the athletes to identify what elements of coach leadership was important

for them to discuss. To provide a framework for the constant comparative analysis of athlete data,

I attempted to use the Measure of Actualizing Potential (MAP; Leclerc, Lefrançois, Dubé,

Hébert, & Gaulin, 1998; Appendix I); however, it was not a useful frame of reference and was

discarded.

The Revised Leadership Scale for Sport (Jambor & Zhang, 1997). The RLSS measures

six leadership behaviours (training and instruction, democratic, autocratic, social support,

positive feedback and context) in a 60-item survey, using a 5-point Likert scale for frequency of

behaviours. Internal consistency measures for each of the subscales are reported as follows: .84,

90
 91

.66, .70, .52, .78 and .69, respectively (Jambor & Zhang, 1997). This survey helped to distinguish

the impact of SF skills on coach behaviour, in particular, with respect to democratic, social

support, and positive feedback behaviours.

This scale was used pre-season at our athlete retreat to provide a baseline understanding

of what leader skills were considered important to the athletes and how their coach expressed

those skills. Each small group of four athletes was given a choice as to which leadership measure

they found valuable and how they witnessed that skill expressed by HC.

The Measure of Actualizing Potential (MAP, Leclerc et al., 1997). The MAP (Appendix

O) is a self-report measure of 36 indicators thought to be congruent with the concept of self-

actualization on two important factors, openness to experience and reference to self (Leclerc et

al., 1998). The authors (Leclerc et al., 1999) reported a Cronbach coefficient of .90 for the over-

all scale, coefficients of .87, .77 for the two major subscales (openness to experience and self-

reference) and from .63 to.77 for the minor scales (openness to self, openness to others and

openness to life, adaptation and autonomy). Three subscales are related to Openness to

Experience: openness to self, openness to others and openness to life; while adaptation and

autonomy were related to self-reference.

This scale was used at the end of the research to analyze the athlete data. My CF and I,

independently, used the scale items as a framework for our interpretive comparative analysis. We

assessed which elements of the scale we felt were present in the first athlete interview and then

compared each subsequent interview for similar and/or new scale elements.

Other Data. During the course of this study, I collected subjective accounts from

journals, personal reflections, observations, notes from others, field notes, audio/video recording,

even email exchanges. I also collected artifacts generated during our workshops, retreats and

group discussions for artifact pictures.

91
 92

Data Analysis

In qualitative research the process of data analysis is not always easily observed as

distinct from the data collection itself because there are many influences on the analytic processes

and strategies used to interpret and transform data into what is being studied (Thorne, 2000).

Thus, it was essential that the analysis be congruent with the pragmatic, critical, humanistic

perspectives that provide the values and theoretical framework as well as motivation for this

project. Therefore, I elected to use two hermeneutic-interpretive methods: thematic discourse

analysis (Batel & Castro, 2018; Braun & Clark, 2006) for the coaches and a constant comparative

analysis for the athletes (Fram, 2013, Thorne, 2000). Interpretive analytic approaches ask how a

phenomenon unfolds over time, while a critical or action approach might ask how it could be

made better (Elliot & Timulak, 2005). In addition, interpretive analytic strategies are less

concerned with methods and more concerned with the processes of how researchers come to their

understandings through experiences that change or adjust their perspectives (Gadamer, 1972). I

used different approaches because although the data are linked conceptually (enhanced athlete

self-actualization that may be influenced by enhanced coach communication skills), I felt they

were different data sets that may have unique contributions to my understanding of coach

communication as well as coach education and learning. For example, I felt that it was of

paramount importance to gain a better understanding of coaching discourse, what they are, their

influences, and what new language and principles might have a positive influence. While with the

athletes, I wanted to understand how their self-actualization processes evolved or emerged over

the course of the season. Therefore, I selected the analyses with these ends in mind.

I first present my critical interpretive orientation, then my discourse analyses, followed by

the interpretive comparative analysis.

92
 93

Critical interpretive orientation. Some researchers contend that research should

consider linking critical and interpretive perspectives (Baxter 2012; Yandall, 2014) in an effort to

investigate associations between power structures, communication and relationships

(Conquergood, 1995; Giddens 1980). Given that sport is a communicative phenomenon, whereby

the execution of sport depends upon communication and language habits for performance,

interpersonal relationships, and transmission of dominant discourses (Kassing et al., 2004;

Yandall, 2014) that are considered authoritative and representative of absolute truth (Baxter,

2011), it is an ideal context for critical interpretive analyses. Work becomes critical when it

exposes systems of domination, oppression, marginalization and ideological hegemony (Miller,

2005; Yandall, 2014). Research in the humanist tradition as well as research concerned with

trying to understand and communicate human experiences, narratives and culture (Holroyd, 2008;

Butler, 1998) are considered interpretive. In particular, there is a critical emphasis with discourse

analysis in AR, because without an emancipatory perspective, it just becomes a set of uncritical

techniques (Bradbury, 2015). Greenwood (2015) submitted that such a perspective inspires

creative thinking while resisting hegemony.

Thematic Discourse Analysis. Thematic discourse analysis identifies patterns, themes

and stories within the data and theorizes language as constitutive of meaning, and meaning as

social (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Discourse also directs our antennae to the construction of cultural

worlds and who is typically empowered or disempowered, while discursive psychology involves

dialogical analysis which reveals patterns that are central to cultural narratives and dilemmas,

especially those discourses that, “represent defence, subjectification and the maintenance of local

and political hegemonies” (p.317). Cultural psychology, on the other hand, also looks to

narratives and discourse to develop an understanding of how culture is institutionalized, shapes

the individual and vice versa (Bruner, 2008; Mattingly, Lutkehaus, & Throop, 2008). According

93
 94

to Wetherell (2015), “Discursive research remains the preeminent route reconnecting the subject

of psychology to social relations” (p.315). Discourse perspectives are also consistent with

Wittgensteinian philosophy (Wetherell, 2015), which is a strong influence on SF practice (Fish,

2011b). Finally, discourse theory is emphasized in AR, due to the significant focus on democratic

dialogue (Greenwood, 2015).

The analysis began with a deductive/inductive analysis of literature, social media and an

autobiography of Pat Summit, followed by a deductive analysis of all coach-related data using

the themes/categories discovered in the first analysis. Following the two analyses, I used the

principles and theories associated with humanistic psychology, solution-focused practice and

cultural psychology to synthesize my understanding of how the coach’s behaviour changed.

Discourse Interpretation. While discourse analysis involves the structural description of

textual features, critical discourse analysis (CDA) involves ascribing meaning to the content

(Bell, 2011). It focuses on social concerns and how the discourse contributes to the production

and/or reproduction of domination or marginalization. With CDA, there is, inherently, a social or

cultural analysis as well (Fairclough, Jessop, & Sayer, 2004). Therefore, Bell (2011) made an

argument that those of us with a humanist/hermeneutic/interpretive approach should use

discourse interpretation to describe our work, since it is our interpretation of meaning. As the

interpreter, it is my insightfulness, more than my analytical skills that leads to understanding.

Ricoeur (1981) suggested that analysis/explanation and understanding are complementary and

reciprocal; that there is a dialectic between analysis and understanding, that is mediated by

explanation. Analysis facilitates explanation, which develops understanding (Bell, 2011).

Data Preparation. The data for the thematic discourse analysis (Batel & Castro, 2018;

Braun & Clark, 2006) included all data, or data corpus (Braun & Clarke, 20016), associated with

the HC and AC. These data were systematically sorted and organized into tables. Data items

94
 95

included: pre/half/post-game recordings of HC (from every game in the season), AAR recordings

of AC, recordings of meetings between the HC, AC and myself, my observation notes, my

journal notes, notes from the AC, notes regarding dominant sport discourses found in literature,

emails, texts and event documents. Twenty-five pre/half/post-game talks were transcribed

verbatim. I made the decision not to transcribe all of the early season recordings. After listening

to them several times, I decided they offered nothing substantially different than the transcripts

already made; a saturation point had been reached and there was nothing new or different in the

recordings that were not transcribed. Recordings from seven games were not transcribed. Some

meetings were transcribed verbatim and some AAR recordings were transcribed verbatim; ten

AAR recordings were not transcribed. When recordings were not transcribed verbatim, they were

listened to multiple times and notes were made; similar to the early season recordings, if the

recordings offered nothing new or different they were not transcribed.

All journal entries and observational notes were treated as discourse and transcribed into

digital format to be used in the thematic analysis. Emails, texts and documents were also treated

as discourse.

Discourse Themes and Categories. A theme is a kind of patterned response that

represents what the researcher considers to be important about the data and helps to answer the

research question (Braun & Clarke, 2006). I used a deductive/inductive analysis to identify the

discourse themes in this study where deductive analysis involves categorizing the data into pre-

existing categories and inductive analysis begins without pre-existing categories (Braun &

Clarke, 2006). Subsequent to the deductive/inductive analysis, I deductively analyzed all

coaching data into themes that had been identified.

Although qualitative research does not generally begin with pre-existing categories, there

is always a focus that directs the researcher (Elliot & Timulak, 2005). My focus was the

95
 96

dominant discourses that support and perpetuate a sport culture that normalizes coach authority

and control while expecting athletes to be docile and compliant. At the same time, I had a second

focus because this project involved an intervention designed to provide the coaches with

communication skills designed to disrupt these discourses and make their communication more

generative in nature. Therefore, I began the deductive process with two overarching themes:

coach power and coach control.

To develop the dominant discourses needed to analyze the communication of the HC and

AC, I used three sources: the media, literature and the autobiography of Pat Summit. The Pat

Summit autobiography deserves some explanation. This book was given to me as a Christmas

gift by the HC who really admired Pat Summit. The book was full of real-life examples of what

media and literature described as dominant sport discourse, much of which was enacted by the

HC.

The creation of themes and categories is an interpretive process, where the researcher

gives priority to the data but also uses findings from other sources; it is described as a dialogue

with the data (Elliott &Timulak, 2005). Sometimes a theme is evident due to its’ prevalence in

the sources and data, or sometimes it is selected due to its’ predominance or importance (Braun &

Clarke, 2006). To inductively identify the dominant discourses, I first explored the literature. I

looked for recurring themes from many different and respected researchers with expertise in this

domain. With these in mind I began to investigate prominent media stories through social media,

articles, and websites (Appendix N). Finally, I transcribed all the annotations and highlighted

sections of the Pat Summit book. I summarized all discourses in a table. Next, I reviewed each set

of discourses for similarities and began an inductive colour coding process that helped me to

identify primary and secondary discourses that are prominent and consistent across all three

domains. With these discourse categories, I then re-read all of the coach-related data which had

96
 97

been categorized in a table according to data source (pre/half/post game, observation, journal,

critical friend) and deductively classified items into these categories, also in table form.

The second thematic analysis was a deductive process in which I used solution-focused

principles/skills as categories or themes. These categories were framed by the skills and

principles I established during the summer learning sessions and included: principles (curiosity,

strength-based, positive assumptions, hopeful) and skills (reframing, leading from behind,

feedback, scaling, questioning). With the help and guidance of my critical friend, I investigated

all of the data related to the HC and AC looking for evidence of change. Any evidence of change

was highlighted. I separated game talk data sets from all other data sets for this process, although

I did classify all data sets. It is important to add that this process of looking for evidence of

change was much more than simply identifying instances where she used a SF principle or skill.

It involved an awareness of context and relationships which required an in-depth understanding

of the principles and philosophies of humanistic psychology, cultural psychology and discourse

theory.

Interpretive Comparative Analysis. Comparative analyses - especially constant

comparative analysis - are often associated with grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), a

popular qualitative research method (Fram, 2013). However, this strategy, which involves taking

one data item (an interview, statement, theme) and comparing it to others for similarities and

differences that might reveal contextual patterns, does not have to lead to theory development

(Thorne, 2000). Similarly, interpretive and comparative analyses are not comprised of explicit,

singular stepwise rules but instead represent the work the researcher uses to make sense of the

singularity of the system in which she finds herself (Yanow, 2014). As such, I used an

interpretive comparative approach to analyze the data provided by the athletes. This involved

taking each athlete interview and comparing and contrasting it to the other interviews of the same

97
 98

athlete and to all of the other athletes. For example, the first interview of athlete one, was

compared and contrasted to the second, third and fourth interviews; then the first interview of

each athlete was compared and contrasted to the first interview of all the other athletes, and so on.

A similar approach was used with the AAR recordings. Each transcript was compared and

contrasted looking for similarities and differences that revealed some pattern. My aim was to

explore potential changes over time in the athletes’ self-actualizing processes.

Theory and Practice. Once all the analyses required to answer the first two questions

were completed, I came to understand that the combined results of those analyses helped to

explain how culture had changed (RQ3). Through my understanding of cultural and humanistic

psychology as well as SF practice (and theory) I was able to describe how I understood that team

culture had changed.

Data Preparation. The AC led all conversations with athletes, except for the peer group

conversation held at the retreat. All of these conversations were recorded. I selected, at random,

one athlete from each year of experience on the team, to follow over the course of the study. I

transcribed verbatim each of these conversations. The peer-group conversations were also

transcribed verbatim. The recordings from the first two AAR processes and the last three AAR

processes were transcribed verbatim. My observational and journal notes were treated as

discourse and transcribed into a digital format.

Comparative Analyses. I began by reading the peer-group transcripts. I made notes

about what I felt were important insights regarding team and self from each group. I put these

into a table and looked for similarities across the groups and/or individuals. I colour coded these

without classifying them. I then began a similar process with each individual athlete, making a

table where I noted what I felt were important or relevant references to self, or the team, given

the study’s purpose. I moved sequentially through their transcripts, noting any progression or

98
 99

evolution with respect to references of self and team. I then made comparisons between athletes

and corresponding interviews, looking for similarities or differences.

I repeated this process with the AAR recordings. I reviewed the transcripts sequentially

and put my observations into a table, making note of self-awareness, authenticity and subjective

value of their contribution to the conversation, and their critical thinking skills. I then compared

my observations from the first transcript through to the last transcript, again, looking for an

evolution in their communication.

I compared the notes in the AAR tables to notes from the athlete development tables and I

also used other data (emails, texts, notes from the AC and HC) to support my final observations

and understanding.

99
 CHAPTER FOUR

Findings and Discussion

The findings and discussion are presented in an integrated manner in the following order:

a personal narrative that describes the self-reflective process of AR as well as a rich sense of the

project’s context, followed by three sections that present the findings associated with each

research question. At the end of the findings section, I present a table that summarizes the data,

analysis, and findings for each research question. This chapter concludes with a discussion of

implications.

In that AR is depicted as autobiographical and deeply concerned with the self-reflective

process of the researcher (Herr & Anderson, 2005), I begin the findings section with a personal

narrative of how this story unfolded and contributed to my own professional growth. I elected to

begin with a story or narrative approach for several important reasons. Firstly, Davis (2007),

asserts that action research requires alternative ways of writing research that better represent the

change that occurred. She suggests that storying is a legitimate ‘way of knowing’ as well as a

method of discovery and analysis, a sentiment shared by Smith and Sparkes (2009). In addition to

the importance of self-reflection, stories serve to provide a meaningfulness that increases our

understanding (Mattingly et al., 2008; Sandelowski, 2004) and shape our behaviours (Kimmerer,

2013). Narratives also help us make sense of culture and the unexpected; quite simply, we learn

through stories (Geertz, 2001; Mattingly et al., 2008). However, there are accusations that also

insist researchers use stories to avoid the work of interpretation (Sandelowski, 2004), and as

such, using stories obliges us to make the utility of the story explicit. In that vein, through the

story, the context and relationships that shape it are ascribed the detail they deserve; which I hope

provides the reader with a greater understanding of the findings and interpretations that follow.

100
 101

Through the telling of this personal story, I am creating a map that charted the journey. The story

is told through my field notes and select excerpts from transcripts. The story I am sharing is

considered a composite story; which is to say that it is combination of descriptions, observations

and even analysis (Cavallerio, Wadey, & Wagstaff, 2016; Spalding & Phillips, 2007).

This is a four-part story in temporal order, representing the preparation for our season

(Our Best Hopes), the first half of the season (So What Else?), the second half of the season

(Thank-you Pat Summit) and the review (The Coaches’ AAR) of our season of work. Each

section also represents a complete AR cycle.

Personal Narrative

In the spring of 2016, I invited the coaches and athletes of a women’s interuniversity sport

team to join me on an action research project that would span almost a full year. For me, the

project represented my doctoral dissertation research, an inquiry of the effectiveness of SF

coaching for sport coaches; for the coaches and athletes, it was really a collaborative leap of faith.

They were ready and willing to try something different after two very troubling and disappointing

seasons. Collectively, we set out to help the coaches learn a new way of communicating, using

SF language and assumptions. We hoped that as a result, the players’ sense of self (self-

actualizing behaviours) would be enhanced and the culture of the team reformed with the

ultimate hoped-for emanation being improved performance.

As an AR study, the coaches, athletes and I were collaborators. I never considered them

participants, or a means to an end. In fact, I aimed as much as possible to assume a not-knowing

stance and tried my best to lead from behind, as a SF practitioner. This is not to say there weren’t

times when I wished that I had elected to use a different model. Partnership and teamwork are

challenging processes under the best of conditions and once the pressures and expectations of

101
 102

performance from multiple sources were added, it strained my hypothesis to the breaking point.

However, it was the quality of our relationships that enabled us to persevere through the change

process and to celebrate and appreciate our success at the end of season, deeply inspired to do

more of what worked.

Our Best Hopes. Most solution-focused practitioners are taught to begin a session by

asking the client a version of, “What are your best hopes for the time we spend together?” This

helps to engage the client’s thinking and direct her toward what she would like instead of the

problem that currently concerns her. It also helps to create a future focus where new possibilities

exist, and establishes a contract between the coach and client, giving the coach a sense of what

needs to be discussed. The first part of my story describes what our best hopes were for this

project.

The (Mis)Understanding. When I began this project in the spring/summer of 2017 I was

incredibly naive, despite years of experience as a SF coach. My belief in the ability of a SF

perspective to convert even the most unyielding sceptic, or to unite even the most divisive team,

was absolute. HC was perceived as set in her ways, and challenging someone with so many years

of experience and success while encouraging her to adopt an SF approach proved demanding.

The disunity, lack of motivation and frustrations of both athletes and coaches were clear signs of

a lingering toxicity.

I knew HC and AC a little because I worked briefly with the team during their challenges.

And I knew I liked them. Their contradictory, yet complementary personalities made me hopeful.

I appreciated HC’s frankness and accompanying authenticity. While AC has a bright, positive

and engaging personality, she is also an astute coach, although she respectfully deferred any

expertise to HC. AC became an essential co-researcher who contributed significantly to the

102
 103

success of this project. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that her absolute commitment and

persistence to the SF model is what ultimately made this project productive.

When I first met with HC & AC to discuss the study and what it might look like we

discussed the AR nature of the project as well as the SF intervention. The coaches were definitely

ready to try something different regardless of the commitment required on their part. I was

enthusiastic about their enthusiasm although upon reflection I realized that our motivations were

different and it would have been helpful if these differences had been made explicit.

My goals were simple: I wanted to give these sport coaches SF coaching skills and tools.

My motivations were equally simple: I had research to complete for a doctoral degree and I

wanted that research to be fruitful, which for me meant that the team culture would be

transformed, opening the athletes to their own ability to self-actualize and as a result, the team

would become more successful by traditional standards. I hoped that ultimately this evolution

would have far-reaching implications for coach education and development, fundamentally

changing sport discourse.

While AC’s goals, motivations and objectives were aligned with mine, in that her goal

was to learn SF coaching skills and she was motivated by the objectives that would make our

project successful, HC’s goals and motivations were more singular - to win games. Her

objectives were the same as ours, however, to improve team culture and have athletes who could

think for themselves and who were engaged through SF coaching and communication. This is not

to say that some goals and motivations were better than others, only that they were different and I

didn’t realize it until the project was over. At the time, I didn’t understand that our goals were not

aligned. Although I didn’t see it clearly at the time, this difference posed a problem which led to

some serious frustrations that greatly impacted HC’s learning, making it much more difficult. For

103
 104

HC, the SF skills were a means to an end, rather than a personal goal. This was a complication I

didn’t understand at the time.

The project really began in earnest at the beginning of May 2017, when I attended my

first practice and distributed the consent forms to all the players and coaches. Following the

practice, I met with the coaches in HC’s office. In addition to HC and AC, there were two other

ACs who worked closely with the team. It is important to note that the structure of the game

bench is strategic. Who sits where determines who has the coach’s ear (read influence) during the

game. This can influence the outcome of the game, what is said, how it is said, and who says it.

While all the coaches attended general meetings, retreats and special events, I worked primarily

with HC and AC. This too, I would come to learn, was an oversight on my part.

Summer Learning. When I began organizing and developing the summer learning

workshops, I was thankful for the foundation that we had built the previous summer. In 2016, I

facilitated two workshops with the coaches where they learned the fundamental principles and

briefly practiced the basic elements of SF coaching language. With this base, I planned six

workshops that were approximately 90 minutes each, with each workshop emphasizing a

particular SF skill/tool (Appendix F). All of the coaches attended these workshops which were

well received, very relaxed, and full of practical examples.

I would describe our May to September preparation as hopeful and enthusiastic. This time

wasn’t only about SF workshops as we were planning for the upcoming season in great detail. I

met with HC and AC at least once a week and communicated many more times via email. As

coaches we were united by a common vision and language for the team that grew with each

workshop and meeting. It was an exciting time, shaped by the rapport we were building amongst

ourselves and the players who were present for summer training. In addition to the meetings,

workshops and training, HC hosted a BBQ for the entire team where we lounged, ate, and swam

104
 105

in the pool. It was all about relationship building, something this team really needed. Yet again,

in hindsight, I realized that the structure of the BBQ was a mirror for the discourse structure of

the team: the athletes socialized and the coaches socialized but there was no intermingling or

relationship building between coaches and athletes. At the time, I attributed this to the age gap

believing the athletes were probably more comfortable hanging out without the coach’s

interference; however, it didn’t have to be that way and we missed a valuable relationship

building opportunity.

From my first meeting with the coaches I felt welcomed, respected, and valued for what

they believed I could bring to the team. And happily, as we began our more serious work of

learning and planning, I felt increasingly valued for what I did bring to the team. I received an

email from AC mid-July that summed it up nicely, “You don't realize how brilliant your

suggestions are...you so make a difference, !. thank you.” And this sentiment was further

reinforced with observations made by my CF, who attended some of the workshops with the

expressed purpose of providing some objective feedback. He described the workshops as having

rapport, the likes of which he’d never seen. He felt the engagement, investment and exchange of

ideas was extraordinary, and the fact that the coaches seemed to be genuinely looking forward to

the next session was evidence that their curiosity and learning were contracted. He did wisely

also comment that he felt HC was outcome-focused, that she wanted to skip the process and get

right to the results. At the time, I felt his observation was a bit harsh and I quickly jumped to her

defense. I understand now, as I mentioned earlier, that I was not aware of the discrepancy

between her goals and ours.

The planning for the upcoming season included a number of activities that were a direct

result of our collaborative process and the coaches’ trust in my work. For example, HC shared

105
 106

with me (and the other coaches) her notes regarding the observations and insights she had made

about the previous, disappointing season. I was pleased to be able to discuss this document with

HC and AC before it was submitted to the department as part of the year-end review. We

reviewed it together with the purpose of using a SF lens to see what we wanted to ‘do differently’

in the upcoming season. This document helped provide a road map and was an excellent example

of HC’s exceptional ability to critically reflect. Using that document, I helped the coaches focus

on what worked, and what they wanted to be doing more of – both fundamental principles of SF

coaching - in the upcoming season.

Steve de Shazer, the founding father of SF therapy (Lipchik, 2014), believed that nothing

was one hundred percent bad, one hundred percent of the time. As such, SF practitioners are

trained to help clients find those times when things are ‘just a little bit better’ and identify what

clients are doing in those times, that they are not doing, or unable to do, when things are very

bad. In this way, the coach focuses on doing more of what works. So, I used the document to help

the coaches see what they did that worked and more importantly how we could do more of that

this upcoming season. It isn’t enough to simply identify what they want to be doing more of, but

the real work is figuring out how to go about it, with a generative perspective. For example, HC

indicated that one of the other ACs needed to do a better job leading in the upcoming season. The

review for this season included exactly how she could accomplish that.

Another valuable practice that we implemented was more one-on-one goal setting with

the athletes. This task was assigned to AC, who had already conducted one-on-one goal setting at

the beginning of the previous season as well as a season review and goal setting for next season

with each athlete. AC’s great respect for the athletes translated into great rapport. Her experience

as an educator was an enormous asset that she used to the team’s advantage. After reviewing the

observations and insights (mentioned above) from 2016-2017, we decided that it might be helpful

106
 107

to implement more frequent one-on-one meetings with the athletes throughout the season instead

of simply at the beginning and end. At first it was suggested that I might want to assume this job,

being a mental training coach, but I knew this was an excellent opportunity for AC to exercise

her SF skills and I wanted the results of the project to reflect the work of the coaches.

One of the first questions I asked HC and AC was about the possibility of having a team

retreat before the season began. I felt that this would provide an excellent opportunity to coalesce

our SF summer learning and engage the team with our philosophy, approach and language. HC

thought it was an excellent idea and because she is a doer, it got done. Planning began almost

immediately and by the end of August our retreat agenda and plans were solidified.

So What Else? ‘What else’ is a SF language tool. When learning SF coaching, I was

encouraged to ask what else 5 times consecutively, in various form. My trainer believed each

asking will elicit a new, more thoughtful and insightful answer from the client (athlete). The idea

is that the first couple of answers are easy and forefront in the client’s mind. The third, fourth and

fifth asking are much more challenging and require the client to look behind the veil of the

obvious and reflect more deeply. We call this, getting the client to do the work, their own work.

We believe the answer is always in the room and rests with the client. However, when individuals

are learning SF and you explain that they will ask ‘what else’ five consecutive times, they look at

you like you’re crazy. Until they do it and it works.

As part of the retreat preparations we divided the players into four groups (the coaches

created the teams very thoughtfully, considering personality, leadership, and experience). The HC

had t-shirts made for each team, once they selected a team name and unique colour. The coaching

staff decided that in solidarity we needed a team name and t-shirts as well. AC and HC suggested

our t-shirts read, “So What Else?” since we’d be focusing on question asking and it represented

107
 108

our new SF philosophy. I was elated and there was a part of me that thought this study was going

to be a walk in the park, considering how committed these coaches appeared.

For the retreat, HC rented a sprawling house. In a remote, speck of a village situated on a

spectacular stretch of beach. It had two fully equipped kitchens, six bedrooms and bathrooms,

large gathering areas, a fire pit for roasting marshmallows and as mentioned, kilometers of sandy

beach. Once the players were divided into their groups we assigned meals – about a week prior to

the retreat. Over the course of three days and two nights, each group had specific responsibilities

related to meal prep and clean-up. HC created the menu (with input from each group) and did the

shopping.

About a month before the retreat, I presented HC and AC with a provisionary agenda,

created after a number of meetings with coaches. It was revised a number of times and the final

version was a collaborative effort (Appendix H). After much discussion, it was decided that I

would facilitate the retreat for the most part, inviting input and cooperation from the other

coaches whenever possible. Our goal was to emphasize our alliance as coaches with regard to this

new approach and to foster a sense of team that the athletes themselves were both engaged with

and committed to. The coaches’ objectives for the weekend included: building a framework for

positive culture (trust, loyalty, leader skills and a sense of shared leadership), building rapport

between players and staff, building individual and collective strengths (team cohesiveness,

collective sense of identity), and building a vision for the upcoming season (contracting). The

coaches and I also decided on some keywords for the weekend that we hoped to emphasize:

vulnerability, helpful, possible, authentic, courageous. It was my job to integrate these words into

all of our facilitated conversations, and the other coaches to integrate them into general

conversations. The HC felt these key words represented the personal focus she wanted each

athlete and the team to emphasize in the upcoming season. There was a no-cellphone rule for

108
 109

meals and activities. Prior to the retreat, I collected three or four favourite songs from each player

and made a playlist.

We arrived on schedule, around 1:00 pm, on a Friday afternoon. The weather was hot, the

skies were clear and blue, and expectations were high. We were all amazed at the house and after

some exploration we let the players select their rooms and we met in the kitchen (while the first

team began lunch prep) to discuss the retreat agenda, rules, objectives and tasks. Over the course

of the weekend, each player was responsible for interviewing every other player on the team to

discover something they didn’t already know. The answers to these interviews and all other notes

were to be kept in their new journal – journal making was the second activity following lunch.

Our first activity involved having each group find a secluded area of the house and record a peer

discussion by answering four questions that I prepared. All groups used the same four questions

(Appendix J).

Following lunch, peer discussions and journal making we got down to business and began

in true SF fashion by asking the players how they would know the weekend was successful. This

type of question asked in advance contracts the client to their contribution and helps them to

think about goals and objectives – measures of success that we can use to assess the work once

the retreat is finished. Their answers were thoughtful and extensive: they would be closer as a

team, become a little better at courageous communication, have made better connections (be

present, enjoy each other’s company, build friendships and common interests), get more

comfortable being uncomfortable, establish collective goals, accountability, and learn to

acknowledge each other (positive attitudes, offering encouragement). The players also came up

with some keywords they felt would be important for the weekend: unity, bonding, cohesion,

authentic, support, respect and positivity. The afternoon flew by in a whirlwind as we all sat

around the huge table in the kitchen, talking, posting our work on the walls and windows with

109
 110

giant post-it-note paper. We left our work up over the course of weekend to serve as a reminder

for each new conversation.

That evening we all enjoyed dinner as a team. Coaches and players lit a campfire and

stories were shared around it while some players had s’mores for the first time. I fell into bed,

barely aware of AC, with whom I was sharing a room.

The coaches were up at 6:00 am the next day, making coffee and preparing for the beach

parkours we had planned for the team workout. The players met us on the beach at 7:00 and they

worked hard while we encouraged them and took pictures of the day dawning over the bay. Our

second day included small and large group work, improv, beach sculptures and ultimate frisbee.

We discussed at length what our Bad Ass Goals (BAG) were going to be for the season. Our day

ended, with more s’mores, laying on the beach in the dark of night looking for falling stars and

once the athletes had fallen into bed, the coaches sat around a dying fire encouraged by what we

were all experiencing.

On our final day, which ended after lunch, HC led the main the session asking the group

as whole to consider what their ‘sacred cows’ were going to be. Sacred cows, for HC, meant

practices that were absolutely essential, so essential they were almost sacred. Then, sitting in a

circle we asked each player and coach to share the following:

• One thing I learned about myself this weekend (or one insight I’ve had) is….

• One thing I’ve learned about my teammates (or team) this weekend is…..

• One thing I’m committed to is……

It was very emotional and touching. We finished with a team cheer, some lunch, a team photo

and a palpable hopefulness.

110
 111

The Crushing Weight of Reality. September rushed by and admittedly I spent the month

basking in the success of our team retreat. The energy and positive momentum buoyed the

coaches as well. HC and AC were further encouraged by the wonderful feedback they were

receiving from the athletes. AC had completed the first round of athlete interviews, originally

scheduling 15 minutes per athlete because in the past she had found it challenging to engage

them. This time however, we worked together to make the questions/interview SF’d and when I

asked how it was going she told me she had to redo the schedule because, “I can’t get them to

stop talking.” During the interviews they talked casually about the retreat and it was unanimously

positive. HC also had athletes approach her about the retreat and received several emails thanking

her for the experience.

However, the success does not lie in their experience alone, but whether or not it

translated to athletic training and performance. When I asked the coaches if they were noticing

differences in performance, that they might attribute directly to our retreat HC answered, “Oh

yes, they are a different team, they are consistently working harder at practice but we as coaches

are also different. The athletes seemed to have found their sense of purpose. They are more

cohesive and more competitive and I am hearing more voices.” I summarized the retreat notes

and included the photos of our artifacts for all the coaches.

AC encouraged me constantly through email and texts, providing valuable feedback and

insights, such as:

It is thanks to your leadership and guidance that the athletes feel that they have a voice.

Thank you for supporting us in this quest! You make us look good...but know that it is

your brilliance. To be part of this, to be guided to such a positive experience is an

awesome experience. You make such a positive difference.

111
 112

So, it was with no little self-satisfaction that I attended my annual dissertation committee

meeting to present my research to-date. At the end of my presentation there was valuable and

insightful comments and questions, but none so prescient as one of my committee member’s

comments. Although encouraged by the enthusiasm of the coaches and their apparent adoption

and endorsement of the language, tools and principles of SF, she wondered if we were in a

honeymoon stage and whether things might change once competition began. I was unprepared for

the change she cautiously predicted.

Pre-season games and tournaments began in October. I had arrived early, in time to watch

the warm-up and sit with the coaches in the stands while they strategized. It felt awkward and

good to be part of the conversation, although I was strictly a listener. I came notebook in hand,

recorder ready. But, it was immediately obvious that if I used either, it would make everyone feel

extremely uncomfortable. I went into the dressing room for the pre-game coach talk and the post-

game summary. I sat directly behind the bench during the games and simply observed and wrote

down my observations and thoughts following the game (this became my practice throughout the

season to avoid making the coaches and players feel like they were being scrutinized).

The team won the season opener but it was not a success from a SF perspective. In the

heat of competition participants fell back into their old communication patterns. I was shocked

and disappointed that the enthusiasm and SF skills I observed in the pre-season seemed to have

disappeared. But there were also moments of wonderful encouragement, like when HC

demonstrated support by cupping a player’s face in her hands when she came off the field. These

moments gave me hope.

On my 90-minute drive home, I reflected on what I had missed and what I needed to do

differently. I came up with an idea. I met with HC for a coffee the following week without a

notebook or recorder. I needed to build some rapport; I realized that I had spent a significant

112
 113

amount of time fostering a relationship with AC, but I really had had no one-on-one time with

HC. Part of that stemmed from my belief that she was extraordinarily busy and didn’t need me

usurping her precious time, especially since I could get much of the information I needed from

AC. Be that as it may, it meant that I didn’t have strong relationship with HC and that needed to

change quickly. I began by asking her what she was most pleased with over the weekend, seeing

as we had won the tournament. In SF work, this is known as having a positive assumption. As a

SF practitioner, we make positive assumptions; she had to have been pleased with something. By

asking the question in this manner, I am asking her to focus on what worked, rather than what

didn’t work because we always want to be doing more of what worked. Invariably, this

perspective reminds me of Fredrickson’s (2001, 2004) broaden and build theory of positive

emotions. Where we put our attention to, grows, and I wanted to help attune HC’s attention.

Despite my question, she began with a litany of what they didn’t do and what they needed

to do better. I did not interrupt. Eventually, she spoke about what they did well and mentioned,

“it was an enormous opportunity for learning.” At the end of our coffee and conversation I

suggested we meet weekly for a coffee chat. These weekly 60-90 minute meetings turned out to

be one of the most critical elements of the study, if not the most valuable – from my perspective.

When we met the following week, I was utterly inspired. The team had won their

previous two games. HC was positive from the outset, which was encouraging; but, the surprise

was her SF approach to video analysis. The last of the six learning sessions I did was SF video

analysis. Using video analysis, the coaches can extract clips from previous games that illustrate

particular skills from a player perspective or from a team perspective. It is a popular and

invaluable tool for coaches and athletes. However, typically coaches look for (and find) clips

where the athlete or team has not executed a move or skill very well. These are then emphasized

with a ‘this is how not to do it’ perspective. I encouraged HC to use video analysis to emphasize

113
 114

what she wanted to see more of. For example, if she used clips where the athlete performed the

skill or move well, she would then ask detailed questions around how the athlete managed to do

that. Following-up those types of questions, she would then ask questions about how the athlete

might become even better at that skill. Alternatively, HC could also use two clips of the same

move or skill, one where the athlete executed it well and the second where the athlete did not

execute the skill very well. Beginning with the first clip she would again ask detailed questions

about how the athlete managed to do it (the idea is to try and get the athlete into her body so they

can feel themselves executing the move); then she could show the second clip where the skill is

not executed very well. She would ask the athlete to point out the differences between the two

clips, again, finishing by asking the athlete how she will do more of what worked to encourage

even greater improvement. In the beginning, this approach takes more time because more clips

have to be prepared and the question asking is very detailed, but the return on investment with

regards to both athlete affect and performance can be invaluable, which was what HC discovered.

I don’t know who was more shocked by the approach, HC or the athletes – and this was

according to HC. She noted that the athletes went directly to what they did wrong or needed to

improve – and she was surprised by this. I was immensely proud of the HC for trying this

approach. It took her an inordinate amount of time reviewing game tape to find examples of what

the players did well, even if they might have lost the point. I cannot emphasize how important

this is – players can execute a move or skill perfectly and still lose the point. I asked HC what she

noticed about this new format. She noted that the players were even more engaged, more

responsive and more thoughtful. She committed to continue using this model in the future. If this

wasn’t enough of a good thing, she then asked how she might improve her pre-game talk.

Because we made so much progress with the video analysis, I wanted to maintain the positivity

and momentum so I wondered if she might pose some questions instead of simply dictating

114
 115

strategy in her pre-game talk. It is her goal to have the athletes be able to think more critically,

but if she (and the other coaches) are constantly telling them what to do, how do they learn that

skill? We role played a few examples and she really liked the concept.

A week later our conversation looked very different. This time we’d lost two consecutive

games although one of those games was overtime close, with only one point separating the

winners and losers. Toward the end of the game however, she told the other coaches, “I’m jealous

of the other coaches, their players are playing with such commitment, refusing to quit. Our

players have given up.” She emphasized how she wanted 150% from the athletes and that she

wanted regret. She was angry the players didn’t seem to take the losses too badly. She also shared

with me some of her conversations with the athletes, and it was clear that these conversations

were not yet SF. Instead, they were full of authoritative statements and negative predications.

At our next weekly meeting we began with an in-depth discussion about three players

who were not performing in practice or in games. I tried to re-direct the conversation with

another idea I had had, that might be helpful to the players - an After Action Review (AAR). HC

was having none of it, she reported that she had “unleashed on them following Saturday’s game.”

Following her tirade, she told the other coaches who were present, that it would be the only time

this year that she’d do that. However, during this unleashing she threatened to take away the

athletes’ gear and gym time - which they would have to earn back. When only two players

voluntarily turned in their gear the following week, HC’s disappointment and frustration

increased. From her perspective, those athletes who did not turn in their gear had the gall to feel

they demonstrated effort. Surprisingly, this was the good part of the conversation.

She told me she was done with questions. This week was going to be all about working

hard and getting ready for the next weekend. For the first time, I felt she wasn’t ready to consider

any alternatives and we were only two weeks into the season. So, I did what any good coach

115
 116

does, try to change the subject – attune her focus to something that might give her even a little bit

of hope or positivity. I went for the video analysis because it had been such a success for

everyone and I knew she was going to do some analysis with the previous weekend’s losses. But

she told me, “There weren’t any examples in the game, that were good. Today is about showing

them they are not doing what they think they are doing.”

This discrepancy between what the players believed they were doing and what HC

believed they were doing was a recurring theme. This pertained to attitude, effort and execution.

Most of the time, according to HC, their perceptions were not even close. I had been giving this

considerable thought, wondering how to allow the players to experience the difference, since

talking about it wasn’t working. While my last effort to steer HC towards the SF approach hadn’t

been very effective, I had one more idea. Just before our lengthy conversation ended, I asked her

if she might try using a scaling exercise during practice (Scaling is a fundamental SF tool). For

example, after a drill she would ask them to scale their own effort on our 10-0 scale. She would

consider how close their perceived effort was to what she thought their effort was. If hers is

lower, for example, the group says their effort was a seven and she thought it was a five, she

informs them of that. They do it again, and again until she feels their effort is a seven. In this

way, they know exactly what she expects of them. If she expects an eight they do it again until it

is an eight. Then, in the game, she can ask for an eight or nine instead of just asking for more

effort – which she claims she never gets. This way, the athletes know exactly what she expects

from them. She said she really liked it and she would try this.

The following week, my goal was to be present for HC and stop trying to change her

behaviour or influence her. I wanted to attend without judgment and without comparison to the

discourse. This is hard work. I listened to her frustration and insights with no agenda and with the

assumption that she has the answers - something that I hadn’t been doing, if I am honest. I had

116
 117

been holding the answers for her, which is exactly what she does with the athletes. Although it

began with a rant, due to another loss, we were able to quickly recover and talk about solutions.

We discussed having the team train with the football team, to learn alternative and fun ways of

moving in ways that would be helpful to us. Adding some variety to the athletes’ training might

also create a new focus, a new effort, new enthusiasm. We also discussed a team newsletter, with

a theme, some goals, feedback, and team pictures – some inspiration. HC really liked both ideas.

And being the do-er she is, she set about implementing.

Sadly, the following weekend we had another close loss. Once again, HC reverted to her

comfort zone of coaching, being demanding even when the players appeared to be playing hard

and with the effort she so often demands. This was evident from her body language, her face, and

her corrections. She focused on what the players were not doing well enough, instead of what the

team could be doing differently. Then, despite my observations, she surprised me with a post-

game talk that was as positive as I’ve heard. It was really good. She inspired hopefulness. Which

led me to question my assumptions yet again. Was I looking too hard for this coach discourse?

The first half of the season ended with a couple of wins sandwiched between a

competitive loss. At the beginning of December, we had our final coffee chat, HC, AC (Skype)

and me. We seemed to be clawing our way toward a SF approach. When AC asked HC about the

loss on Friday, HC shared how it was a difficult loss but she was calm in the dressing room post

game. She shared how she had decided to point out what had worked instead of scolding the

athletes. She went on to share the many things that worked in Saturday’s game as well. I was

impressed and relieved. HC also shared her frustration with a particular player who’s lack of

consistency and effort continue to be extremely frustrating. She said, “She is playing terribly, but

I keep playing her. I shouldn’t, but I do because I want her to develop and I know it’s important

to her. I care about her. I lose sleep over it.” This is why I had hope. To me this was sign of an

117
 118

excellent interuniversity coach. Once the meeting had finished, AC and I exchanged notes. She

felt there was a positive change in HC. She reminded me, baby steps, baby steps.

Just before the December break HC, AC and I had our official action-research feedback

and review process. It was thorough and intense. We decided to implement the AAR process

following every game in the new year and AC would be the facilitator. The AAR asks four

simple questions: 1) What was supposed to happen?, 2) What actually happened?, 3) What was

the difference?, 4) What did we learn? This is another step in our effort to get the athletes

thinking, talking and leading. It would take place immediately following the HC’s post-game

talk; in this way, they might also be able to process that as well. We also discussed the

importance of getting the other coaches ‘on board’ because their negativity on the bench is

adversely influencing HC. Both AC and I emphasized the positive changes we had witnessed

with the team in general, with specific athletes, and with HC. Then, both AC and HC shared their

challenges with some of the SF language tools, especially with scaling (which HC didn’t use

during practice because she didn’t feel comfortable although, she still felt it was a good idea). I

pointed out in some transcripts that I brought along where they were using SF tools. I also asked

them to review two HC transcripts and highlight all the SF elements. I deliberately selected a

transcript with very few elements and one where the language was much more solution-focused.

It was a productive and collaborative afternoon.

Thank-you Pat Summit. HC gave me a book: Sum It Up: A Thousand and Ninety-Eight

Victories, a Couple of Irrelevant Losses, and a Life in Perspective, by Pat Summit and Sally

Jenkins. AC had told me many times since the summer that HC admired Pat Summit. As

someone studying sport psychology (I did my Master’s Degree on coach abuse), I thought Pat

Summit could be the poster child for how NOT to coach. I was well aware of her harsh,

authoritarian and quite frankly, questionable coaching style, pretty much the complete opposite of

118
 119

what I was endorsing with the coaches of this team. I accepted the book with gratitude and

curiosity.

HC’s post-game talk following our next game, which we lost, was disappointing. For 20

minutes she unloaded and at one point she said,

Or is it beyond [this University’s] athletes to get excited and to show emotion, positive

emotion, is that beyond our school? It must be beyond your character. It must be like that;

…… did I recruit 12 or 15 girls who are not emotionally invested? That's on me then.

Perhaps what I needed to understand could be found in the pages of the Pat Summit book. If HC

admired this woman so much, I needed to know why. I read the book in less than 24 hours. It’s as

if I experienced my time with this intervention in two eras: Before Pat Summit (BPS) and After

Pat Summit (APS).

Without providing a complete book report, I can highlight what made it both meaningful

and helpful to me. First and foremost, it provided context. I understood how Pat Summit’s past,

her childhood, influenced her character, her choices, her behaviour. She grew up dirt poor, in a

house with no running water, one of five children. Her father hit her so hard that she did a back

flip off a chair – when she was five. She received her first physical hug from her father when she

was 43. If two words could characterize her childhood and adolescence they would be, hard

work. She took the tough love (some would say abuse) and the uncompromising work ethic and

translated it into her own version of success. She made it work for her. It provided a framework

for her belief system and hard work was the foundation. She was as unyielding as her father when

it came to getting what she wanted from her players. I admired her. I admired her grit.

This is not to say that I endorsed her choices, some of which were more extreme than I

even imagined. For example, one time she made the players practice until they vomited into

garbage pails placed strategically in all the corners of the gym (because they had stayed out

119
 120

partying the night before). Another time she decided to ‘make them hate losing’; when they

arrived home at 2:00 am, she made them put on their cold, wet and sweaty uniforms from the

game they had played earlier in the evening (and lost), and she made them finish playing the 20

minutes they hadn’t played in the game – until 4:00 am. She felt the most effective way to get the

players’ attention was to embarrass them, making them run wind sprints in front of the opposing

crowd after losing a game, or she would drive for hours on the bus without washroom breaks,

food or discussion; she would withhold compliments to manipulate players. She was admittedly

fierce.

As shocked as I was by these stories, I was equally impressed by her unwavering

dedication to her players as people. She explained that her demandingness was based on the

fundamental belief that every player had greatness in them and she made sure they knew it. She

left handwritten notes and letters of encouragement in the player’s lockers. Sometimes players

stayed at her house when they had nowhere else to go. I don’t believe these gestures necessarily

made her other choices okay, but knowing she had deep relationships with the players somehow

softened the edges for me.

Most importantly, I discovered some wisdom that could really resonate with HC and our

team. I made note of the following: a coach needs to bring a team together, loss helps to define

winning, as she became a better coach she made fewer team rules and kept them simple, she

treated the players as adults until they gave her reason not to, she tried to be fair, firm and

consistent, rules without relationship result in rebellion, she emphasized family, she expected

commitment, she always reinforced her themes, she knew how to praise even after a loss and

there is a fine line between being demanding and being negative. And finally, during time outs:

the first thing you say sticks, everything else goes in one ear and out the other; and sometimes it

is critical that what they hear from the coach is positive – to give them confidence. All of these

120
 121

bits of coaching wisdom are excellent and could serve any coach of any team. The italicized

details were the bits of treasure I was keeping in my pocket for future use. I understood fully why

HC loved Pat Summit. I also saw how Pat literally embodied many of the coaching discourses

that perpetuate athlete docility and compliance.

I’d like to say that we got off to a great start in the New Year, but we played two of the

top ranked teams in the league in the first week and these were not close or competitive games.

HC took these losses hard and once again slipped back into her old ways. Following these losses,

AC began the AAR project, something that she committed to, but not entirely comfortable with.

HC was not initially supportive of the AAR process/project. She told AC that she did not like the

AAR process because it was “too positive” and “the players only say positive things that aren’t

true.” She also told AC that the SF approach was not working. This time though, I was less

anxious about her regressing behaviour. I had Pat Summit wisdom and I felt like I had a much

better understanding of the real problem for her. I saw the foundational conflict for the first time

clearly. HC was trying to reconcile these entrenched coaching narratives with what we were

asking her to do, and positivity, to a great extent, is not part of that narrative. After a loss, the

players had no ‘right’ to be positive; they should feel remorse and regret, even shame – otherwise

how were they learn to ‘hate losing’ and become champions? Admittedly this is a seismic shift

for coaches, yet we know that language determines culture and influences behaviour.

There is another incredibly challenging conflict coaches face in these situations. We are

only just beginning to write about the struggles that interuniversity players face as student-

athletes. In some contexts, they are regarded as students and in others as athletes, sometimes

both. The conflict that arises with such a term is one of outcomes. Athletic Departments often

pledge, through policy statements, to emphasize holistic and leadership development for athletes

121
 122

(Yandall, 2014). Yet, the success of the coach is determined by her/his win/loss record, outcome.

The system operates with a fundamental conflict of interest that HC is acutely aware of:

Why do I get mad at you? It's my job, it's my job to find wins. My job is to find wins. If

you don't do what we're asking you to do, we have to replace teams. And the pros, what

do the pros do if you can't win, they replace coaches. And then they make trades on trade

season that's what they do. They get rid of bad apples and they bring in people who they

think can get them more wins. That's what they, that's what happens in real life.

The extent of what we were trying to accomplish with this project was in fact daunting. I had the

utmost compassion for HC and I admired her courage for even trying.

My first coffee chat of the new year followed these two losses. The HC had made it clear

to the AC that she felt the SF questioning and the AAR weren’t working. I can’t say I was

looking forward to the meeting. Frankly, I felt myself slip away from my SF perspective and I

devised a well-planned argument that I was sure could convince her that it was working. But, on

route to the university, I realized that I couldn’t walk into our meeting with that plan; instead, I

needed to be solution-focused, which meant I had to adopt a not knowing stance, a stance of

curiosity, and I simply had to listen and ask good questions. HC had the answers.

I listened to her for 40 minutes without interrupting. I listened to how discouraging

everything was, everything the players were not doing and how the players were

underperforming. When she slowed down, I asked her permission to ask a question.

“Absolutely,” she replied.

“Are the players getting better as a result of your increased negativity?” I asked.

She replied that they weren’t getting better, but they also weren’t getting any worse. With

eyebrows raised I responded, “Really?” Then I asked her if this place felt familiar. Were at this

particular place last season? She paused for a long while and then looked at me, “We were in this

122
 123

place at this time last year. And that’s NOT good!” Then, I asked if her negativity had worked for

her last year. “No.”

I asked again, “Is it working for you now?”

“No! (pause) But I need to coach hard. I’m tired of having to hold their hands, stroke their egos,

only being able to make deposits. I have to be able to make withdrawals. I have to be able to tell

them when they are doing something wrong!”

I assured her that SF coaching does not mean she can’t coach hard, or even make

withdrawals, which I realized in that moment, I hadn’t done before (Thank-you Pat Summit).

But, it does need to be synergistic and generative. Then, she made a breakthrough reflection. She

said she realized that aside from AC, her assistant coaches were coaching negatively. They were

also, primarily, only making withdrawals. She knew this because her ear had become attuned to

their negativity and she was consciously aware of it. As a result, she then feels the burden of

making deposits to compensate, which then limits her withdrawals. At that moment, she

committed to informing the assistant coaches that she was the only coaching staff allowed to

make withdrawals – their obligation was to make deposits and encourage the players (which she

would also do, but with much more freedom). She also suggested that there would no longer be

any coaches in the dressing room when AC did the AAR with the players. This was to be their

opportunity to fully engage with the process without worrying about her reaction to their

thoughts. This was a breakthrough.

Despite a soul-crushing four-game losing streak, things continued to improve. But, it took

one more conversation that this time included the ACs. Following our collaborative unit meeting,

HC, AC, another AC and myself continued to talk once the other members had left. HC began by

stating that she and the other coaches were going to be more positive. She realized that she had

deeply wounded a player with a mean remark over the past weekend and she felt terrible about it.

123
 124

She hadn’t yet reconciled how to ‘coach hard’ and ‘make deposits’ at the same time. I listened

with curiosity to all the coaches as they shared their struggles with players. Finally, I decided to

meet them where they were at – a SF approach where the coach meets the client where she is

instead of trying to emphasize a future-focused perspective. I went on a non-SF rant about Pat

Summit. Up until now, none of them had suspected that I had read the book.

I explained how I was totally engrossed by the Pat Summit book, highlighting, making

notes, dog hearing pages - because it had changed my entire understanding of coaching. I

explained how in the past I studied Pat Summit as an example of how not to coach. Then, I

explained how, I believed, Pat was able to berate, harangue, and even humiliate her players and

get away with it because they knew at their core, she believed each and every one of them was

great and she encouraged them as much as she berated them. She shared her passion.

Then I said directly to HC, “If you want to coach ‘intense’ then the ratio cannot be 98% to

2%. You have to even it up. For example, you can grab an athlete by the jersey when she comes

off a good shift (I am literally on my feet demonstrating on AC) and say, "that was goddamn

great! I want more of that!” and give her a high 5 or a pat before she goes down the bench

because that is intense and generative, and it’s a compliment. It’s fine to be tough and hard, but

you can still be generative and it doesn’t have to be all negative. Maybe 1% of the players were

hard core, bring-it-on, type individuals who could absorb the constant negativity. These players

have what I call a fuck-you (FU) response. I even gave an example. One of our key players,

whom HC rides quite a lot had been benched due to what HC perceived as poor performance. HC

made it clear to everyone that if you’re not performing, you’re benched. The athlete had a FU

response. “That’s what an athlete did, didn’t she Coach? She said (to herself), ‘FU Coach, I’m

going to play better, I’m going to be better. F.U!’ And her FU attitude has been a turning point

for this team. And you need to recognize that.” Afterwards, AC told me she thought the meeting

124
 125

was great. It was a tough conversation that needed to be had. Then she added, “I don’t know

where we’d be without your perspective.”

My final, really tough conversation with HC came toward the end of January, at our

weekly meeting, just after our 4th consecutive loss. The conversation revolved around her pre-

game talk and her lack of positivity. I began by asking her what she believed contributed to our

consistently slow starts and eventually I asked if she thought it might have anything to do with

her pre-game talk. The players didn’t seem very motivated when they left the dressing room. I

wondered out loud if her ‘comparative talk’ – about all the strengths and resources of the

competitor, while not emphasizing our own strengths and resources – was part of the problem.

She was very honest and explained that she has a very hard time not doing that because she feels

she’s not doing her duty if she doesn’t let our team know how prepared the other team is. She

went on to say that she would stop using comparative talk when the team demonstrated to her in

practice that they could ‘bring it’. I suggested that was arguing whether the chicken or the egg

came first and I explained that the team needs to know that they can do it. They need her to

motivate them with her confidence (like Pat Summit). This was a real missing piece for this team

and HC struggled with this. By the end of our conversation however, she said she would try to do

that and she would not use talk that elevated the opponent above her own team. Instead, she

would try to use phrasing where the inference is that she believes we are capable of winning.

Typically, she asks them, “Can you win? I don’t know.” Imagine your coach, before the start of a

game, not only asking if you can win, but then stating, she doesn’t know if you can. HC needs to

help them know. HC expressed her frustration with not being able to use comparative talk but she

was committed to avoiding it.

Toward the end of the month, I had my CF attend our home games with me. The next

morning, I had him listen with me to the recordings of HC’s post-game talk that AC had sent.

125
 126

HC’s post game talk was transformative. It was like everything we’ve ever discussed was fit into

those 12 minutes. She used all the SF elements we’ve been working on. She was motivating and

even encouraging. CF was amazed because it was in stark contrast to what I’ve been sharing with

him and what we saw at the game. We discussed the role of Pat Summit and how that might have

influenced the past two weeks. Meeting HC where she is at, as she put it, I appealed to her belief

system and demonstrated that she can be intense and tough without being overly negative. She

can be like Pat Summit (to an extent) and be effective and true to her own nature. These things

can be reconciled.

Odd Socks. At the end of January, we had our first win in a while, against a tough,

nationally ranked team. It was thrilling. Afterwards, HC realized that she had had on odd socks.

So, we made that our good luck superstition and all the coaches, wore odd socks to every

subsequent game. I won’t attribute our six-game win streak to those odd socks but I will say it

united us and entertained the players. It’s hard to say sometimes what it is that might make the

difference. A sense of humour always helps.

After that first win, we were scheduled to play a team that we hadn’t beaten in two years.

It was important because we needed a consecutive win psychologically and HC needed to

demonstrate her commitment to coaching more positively and this was certainly going to be the

test. We all came to the game with our odd socks. It was a full gym with lots of hype – an

established rivalry. AC told me that although HC was nervous at the preparatory practices, she

was also very positive. AC explained that HC prepared the athletes really well and gave

information that would help them be successful. For the first time I sat on the bench, which was

pretty exciting. I sat directly behind HC.

Before the game, AC and HC had a quiet dinner together, just the two of them. A nice

repose. HC told AC that she wasn’t going to yell at the players during the games anymore. She

126
 127

felt that it distracted them. AC teased her and replied, “Oh yeah, at least until you turn to me and

say, ‘AC, I’m not going to be nice to them anymore’.” HC laughed. HC also explained that she

told the other two coaches that they were not to yell at the players either. True to her word, I saw

a true transformation. For the most part, she let the players play and she only talked to them

during transitions subbing in and out of the game. It was wonderful because the players were

really able to absorb what she was saying because she was calm and speaking to them one-on-one

instead of yelling commands at them.

At halftime we were leading by one point which was a phenomenal accomplishment. The

players were playing with effort and heart and intensity. However, at the half time talk, AC said

that HC still primarily referenced what they didn’t do instead of complimenting them on what

they did well. So, AC suggested quietly to HC that it was essential she recognize the awesome

effort of an athlete during this first half, which she did.

The other team came out hard as soon as the game started, however, our players did not

back down, not once. They were fearless. But sadly, typical after our halftime talks, our players

came out flat. For the second half of the game the other team led. Almost immediately, HC began

to revert to her comfort style of coaching, yelling instructions and generally looking upset and

frustrated. I was discouraged, momentarily. Despite trailing, somehow HC managed to rediscover

the commitment that she’d made to coaching differently. She stopped yelling (for the most part),

she gave instructions indicating what was happening and she began once again to talk to the

players individually. Before you knew it with six minutes left we were clawing our way back.

With less than a minute to go we tied the game and then took the lead. With less than one second

to go we took the lead and won the game. We were all ecstatic, really ecstatic. To have played so

well and so valiantly, and beat this team was an amazing physical and psychological

accomplishment. All of the coaches were hugging each other and high-fiving. In the changeroom

127
 128

HC was very encouraging, really encouraging. In her own way, although she still highlighted

things they didn’t do well, she expressed how very, very proud we all were of them and she

mentioned many of things they did really well. She canceled the practice scheduled for the

following morning, as an extra reward, which elicited an enormous cheer from all the girls. I was

then invited to go to my first away game next week.

I told HC after the game what a wonderful job that she had done coaching that game. She

told me about her commitment not to yell at the players during the game. I told her that it was

entirely evident and purposeful and had an obvious positive effect. I told her that I noticed how

the players were so attentive when she spoke to them in their transitions and how they were able

to absorb her instruction. It was so wonderful that they that they won, especially given the

gargantuan effort that HC made to coach differently. It was the positive reinforcement that she so

needed. Back-to-back wins against two of the toughest teams.

We lost in the first round of sudden-death play-offs against one of the ranked teams we

had beaten in our win streak. It was incredibly disappointing. I think part of the problem was that

the players didn’t believe they could actually continue their win streak. They expected it to end,

so it did.

The season ended for us with a fabulous graduation celebration for our 5th year athletes.

HC arranged dinner and accolades for the entire team and their families. She personally made a

special dessert for the event. It was that extra personal touch, that sets her apart as a coach. She

heaped praise on the athletes and families themselves in a moving tribute. It was bittersweet.

The Coaches’ AAR. As soon as we had cleaned up from the graduation party, I

suggested to HC and AC that we have a little coaches’ retreat to debrief the season and plan for

next year. In typical fashion the plans were in motion. I needed some time alone with them to

128
 129

review the season with regards to my research and we needed to discuss what and how we were

going to debrief with AC2, and the other coaches.

Having a day with just HC, AC and myself was invaluable. We walked to a local

restaurant for dinner and our conversation didn’t once involve sport. It was personal and storied.

After dinner we got to work and for some reason I felt nervous. This was the first time I was

asking them directly whether or not they felt our project was successful. I essentially followed the

AAR process: what was supposed to happen, what actually happened, what was the difference

and what did we learn? My specific questions to them included: What worked from your

perspective as a coach and what didn’t work and why?; how, if at all, did it help the players?;

how did it help our team culture?; were we successful?; how helpful would this process be for

coaches in general?, what might the implications be for coach education and development?,

should coaches be taught this type of communication, and why? It was a long, valuable

conversation.

One brief exchange went like this,

HC: “I thought at the beginning of the year, in the summertime, I felt that it was just heavy. It
was like…..we've got to do a lot of work…. but at the time I thought, O My God, I don't know if
I can do this to the end of the year….and then it became second nature.”
Me: “That’s so good.”
AC: “Then I’d come into your office and you’d say, ‘We’re not doing that! No more!”
HC: “I said that maybe three times.”
AC: “So I said nothing…then I just said, ‘Let’s just keep going at it’. I’m not going to get into an
argument.”
Me: “I’m really curious. Is it because it’s so different? And what makes it seem that way
initially? Is that a barrier?
AC: “It’s uncomfortable, because we don’t talk like that. Saying, ‘What else?’ a thousand
times…. but once we got used to it saying, ‘What would you do differently?’ It was so
easy…because it puts it back on them.”
HC: “And we're so used to giving them the information…. because were on a timeline…so that's
part of it… and as coaches, you have an hour and 55 minutes, or whatever... So, it's like, and you
look at these kids and you just want to say... just get there! What do you mean you don't know…
come on! It's a matter of stopping and then figuring that out. It's that fine line between, and that's
where I struggled this year.”

129
 130

Much of our conversation was about the challenges and breakthroughs. And despite these

challenges we all persevered and felt that we accomplished our goals. The culture and

performance of the team improved and the athletes’ personal development was tangible,

according to the coaches.

Once we got the research questions out of the way, we spent an entire day preparing a

detailed agenda for the evening when all the coaches joined us. After pizza we got to work and

the collaboration inspiring. We hooked a computer up to the big screen TV and created our

document in real-time. It was motivating and exciting. First, we summarized our thoughts about

the staff and what worked. Then, we created roles and responsibilities for each staff member –

with one of our foci being, what is going to help HC be a better coach? We reviewed scouting,

recruitment, best practices for next season, statistics, game management, practices, feedback,

player development, off-season preparation, behaviour, game prep, skill development, style of

play, attitude.

Before everyone left to crawl into their beds, HC, AC and I shared our most recent idea

for the team development. It was an idea I proposed to HC and AC a week or so earlier. I felt it

could really help to re-establish our team culture (after summer break) and take everything we

were trying to achieve to a new level. A 10-day pre-season training camp in Europe where we

could play and train with some Division A and B teams. It would also be an excellent bonding

experience and give us lots of uninterrupted time to work together on all our skills - social,

emotional and sport specific. At the time I thought it was a far-fetched idea but as usual HC got it

done. We leave at the end of August. The beginning of new solution-focused season.

At the beginning of this study, I wondered, can language really change this team? Can it

give the actors (coaches and players) more authority in their own stories – enough to change the

discourse and culture?

130
 131

Before interpreting the findings, the various research questions, data used to address the

research questions, analyses and finding are summarized in Table 2. This table forms the

framework for the remainder of this chapter

131
 132

Table 2
Research Questions, Data, Analysis and Findings

Research Question Data Analysis Findings Answer

• 25 Pre/half- • Deductive/Inductive • 5 Master • Yes HC’s skills

time/post game Thematic Analysis Narratives of improved:
recordings of literature, social Sport: HWT, perspective,
• Journal notes media and Pat GSMT, GPWTT, leading with
• 6 AAR recordings Summit - using CET, EJMT questions,
• Critical Friends coach power and • Way of Being complimenting,
Do SF Coaching skills
notes and authority • Unvolitional key words
improve the
communication observations • deductive analysis Blindness • Yes, discourses
• Observations of all coach related • Competing were interrupted
skills/behaviours of
coaches. Are prominent • Coach meeting data using SF Discourses as she reconciled
discourses disrupted? If recordings principles and competing
so how? • Approximately 90 skills: reframing, discourses with
pages of questioning, her Way of Being
transcripts feedback, scaling, and was able to
strengths-based, differentiate
hopeful, curiosity herself from these
powerful
discourses

• 4 Peer interviews • Constant • Learned to self- • Yes athletes’ self-

• 22 Athlete Comparative assess actualizing
Does SF communication interviews Analysis where • Self-evaluate processes were
• 6 AAR each interview was independent of positively
influence athletes’ self-
• 82 pages of compared and coach influenced as
actualizing processes?
transcriptions contrasted with all • Performances evidenced by their
• Observations others over the improved - ability to
differentiate

132
 133

Research Question Data Analysis Findings Answer

• Critical Friends course of the entire individual and themselves from

notes and study collective the coach and the
observations • Confidence dominant
improved discourses
• More critical
thinking

• Data corpus • Constant • Team hierarchies • Yes team culture

• Results from RQ1 comparative were broken was enhanced as
and RQ2 analysis of results down the very nature of
from coach • More the conversations
analysis, athlete accountability changed, from
Does the intervention analysis, AAR • More authenticity parent-child to
appear to change team • Storying • More adult-adult
culture? If so in what inclusiveness • There was a
ways? • More consistency to
collaboration communication
inside and outside and behaviour
competition that positively
influenced
performance

Note: HWT = Hard Work Theme, GSMT = Great Sport Myth Theme, GPWTT = Good Players Want This Theme, CET = Coach as Expert Theme,
EJMT = Ends Justify the Means Theme, AAR = After Action Review, SF = Solution-Focused

133
 134

Findings: Research Question One

Do solution-focused coaching skills improve the communication skills/behaviours of the

coaches? Are dominant coaching discourses interrupted? If so, how do these changes

occur?

In the following section, I begin my findings and discussion which include an analysis of

data associated with the first research question. I begin with a description of my first critical

thematic discourse analysis (Batel & Castro, 2018; Braun & Clark, 2006), which describes the

predominant discourses of coach power and athlete docility prevalent in sport and frames the

response to part (b) of RQ1: (b) Are prominent discourses interrupted? This is followed by a

description of findings associated with part (a) Do SF coaching skills help improve the

communication skills/behaviours of the coaching staff? Finally, I present the findings associated

with part (c) If so, how? These sections are presented out of order because I needed to know what

these dominant discourses were and how she enacted them, before I could determine if SF

influenced her behaviours and how. This section concludes with the presentation of other data.

Dominant Discourses

The results in this section are the outcome of two critical thematic discourse analyses

(Batel & Castro, 2018; Braun & Clark, 2006), which establish 5 master narratives of sport as well

as evidence of how the coaches’ behaviours changed. Within discourse or cultural psychology

perspectives it is assumed that our experiences and sense of self are constituted through

discourse, language and communication practices that imply meaning, values and frameworks for

behaviour (Taylor & Ussher, 2001, Wetherell, Stiven & Potter, 1987, Valsiner, 2007). In

particular, it reveals privilege and power (Batel & Castro, 2018; Wetherell & Potter, 1988;

Wetherell, Stiven, & Potter, 1987). One of the best ways to uncover these practices and

134
 135

encourage social change is through discourse analysis (Taylor & Ussher, 2001, Wetherell, Stiven,

& Potter, 1987) which identifies discursive themes or representations that often represent

experience (Wetherell et al., 1987). Significantly, Batel & Castro (2018) suggest that a thematic

analysis is valuable for helping to identify meaning patterns and illuminating a group’s

understanding of the research phenomenon and themes of privilege - in our case, coaching

discourses. Identification of themes can be deductive, inductive, implicit, explicit and even

include what is unsaid or absent. Bell (2011) describes the process as discourse interpretation,

rather than discourse analysis. Similarly, it has been said that discourse analysis is not about rules

and methods, but based on hunches and interpretations (Wetherell & Potter, 1988). The analyses

presented here illustrate the insidious nature and influence of pervasive coaching discourses that

perpetuate unhelpful coaching practices. Following the analyses are the implications.

I use the established discourse of coach power and authority as a framework for the first

deductive/inductive critical thematic analysis to establish the dominant discourses. Then, I used

the five master narratives discovered through the initial analysis to do a deductive thematic

analysis that categorized all data collected from and representing the head HC well as AC. I first

present evidence of the great sport myth and cultural discourses that perpetuate authoritative

coaching discourses. Then, using various communication data collected over the course of the

study including transcriptions of coach communication during games (pre, half and post-game

talks), personal interviews, field notes and observations, meeting notes, emails and texts, I

present evidence of these discourses. Finally, I present evidence from the same data sources that

illustrate significant changes in the performative and constitutive communication use of both

coaches.

Overview of Sport and Coaching Discourses. Discourses are systematized, cultural

communicative practices that through their strength and prevalence influence behaviour because

135
 136

they determine what matters within social systems (Ulrich, 2003) and represent the politics of

empowerment within particular cultures. Discourse analysis becomes critical when it explores

and reveals privilege, power and marginalization (Bell, 2011; Wetherell, 2015). In addition,

discourse depends on language and communication, which is seen as both performative and

constitutive (Wetherell, 2015). By analyzing discourse, we can illuminate automated and

unconscious practices that may implicitly or explicitly contribute to harmful, or even abusive,

systems. Sport is a system of competing discourses. In fact, Coakley suggests the great sport

myth (GSM) - that sport is inherently pure and good and leads to generative collective and

individual development - is one of the most pervasive and false discourses in society (2015). Yet,

in recent years, researchers have begun to recognize the “fake news” surrounding sport and they

suggest that sport performance is ‘intimately bound with what can be said, who gets to speak and

with what conviction’ (Avner, 2014, p.42). One such dominant discourse is that of the power,

privilege, and authority of the coach, where coach power and authority is normalized, and

reinforces a culture that expects athletes to conform, be the recipients of expert knowledge, be

compliant, and even experience their compliance as ‘fun’ (Avner, 2014).

Discourse Themes and Examples

From media sources (Appendix N), literature, and the Pat Summit book I identified five

predominant themes of discourse: hard work theme, the great sport myth theme, coach as expert

theme, the ends justify the means theme, and good players want this theme (the detailed process

is described in the methods section).

The hard work theme. Of the five themes, this was one of two that included a sub-

theme: the tough coach theme. In the media (social media, websites, digital news) the hard work

theme presents as the idea that today’s athletes are softer, less respectful, and less mentally tough,

136
 137

than previous generations; subsequently, the lessons of a ‘tough’ coach are considered valuable

and many believe that a tough coach prepares you for life. In the literature, I did not find support

for the hard work theme framed as clearly as it is in media; however, there was support for the

tough coach theme, in that harsh, belligerent coaching is often perceived as necessary (Cushion &

Jones, 2003) and is normalized and unproblematically reproduced (Mean & Halone, 2010). In the

Pat Summit book, there were many, many examples of each. For instance, for Summit, hard work

and being tough was not only an asset but necessary; as a result, she brought those values and

belief system with her into the coaching context. She also believed that today’s players are more

argumentative, distant and less impressed; therefore, you get only what you demand of them and,

as a result, it is a good thing to push players beyond their comfort zones. Although Summit

worried about being too harsh, she felt it was the job of the assistant coach to soften her blows, so

she could continue to coach hard.

I think for HC, the hard work and tough coach themes, were perhaps the most

predominant the ones with which she most struggled. Like Pat Summit, she believed that many of

today’s athletes are entitled, not mentally tough, and don’t know what hard work is. For example,

at the beginning of the season during half-time at a game where we were ahead (and ended up

winning) she told the athletes, “Nobody cut hard. (her tone is angry) Nobody is willing to dig

deep defensively and get the hell out of the way and make hard cuts.” My field notes indicate that

she wanted 150% from the players, she wanted regret when they lost and the only way the

players could express their regret was through hard work. Yet, I also noted toward the end of that

month, that even when the players were playing hard with the effort she so often demands, it

appeared she was not satisfied.

After a losing streak, the players received this message in the post-game talk from HC:

137
 138

…but you cannot play this sport thinking it’s going to be a walk in the park. But we have

to work harder in practice so games are easy. So, you need to understand that. You should

be more tired after a practice than after a game. And that’s the mentality that I think we’re

going to work, well, we’re going to work on that. So, we’re going to be really tough on

you this week….

The sub-theme of the HWT was highlighted when HC claimed: “I need to coach hard. I’m

tired of having to hold their hand, stroke their egos, only being able to make deposits. I have to be

able to make withdrawals…” This was reinforced by another AC who, at the same meeting,

expressed that, “Players need to be able to take it, be more tough. HC shouldn’t have to always

be positive.”

The great sport myth theme. From the media (newspapers, social media, websites,

blogs) this theme was produced by the maxim that un-coachable kids turn into unemployable

adults. In the literature, the GSMT speaks to the inherent purity and goodness of sport and the

inevitability that it fosters positive personal and community development (Coakley, 2015). With

Summit, she absolutely believed in the GSM saying that, “if you do it once, you’ll do for the rest

of your life” (pg. 168), despite evidence from sport psychologists studying more than sixty

thousand athletes at all levels, that sport does not necessarily build character (Eitzen, 2016). The

GSM is in fact almost an umbrella theme, that protects all the other themes. The implication

being that all these other themes are justified by the GSM. The GSM is sustained by the

inspirational nature of sport and global inspirational themes (Coakley, 2015). For example, the

following quote from Nelson Mandela (2000,

http://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp), captures the mythical power attributed to

sport:

Sport has the power to change the world. [applause] It has the power to inspire, it has the

138
 139

power to unite people in a way that little else does. It speaks to youth in a language they

understand. Sport can create hope, where once there was only despair. It is more powerful

than governments in breaking down racial barriers. It laughs in the face of all types of

discrimination.

In our team this was evidenced in many ways. For example, from my retreat notes, the

coaches identified the following key words as themes for the retreat - which they wanted the

athletes to embody: unity, respect, positivity, duty, cohesion, and trust. Further expanding on that

those themes was the concept of value congruent behaviour. This implies that athlete behaviour

should be congruent with the themes mentioned above and during the retreat we worked together

to identify what those behaviours might look like. What would they be doing to demonstrate and

enact respect, for instance.

Another example that highlights these inspirational themes, can be found in the review

notes of the previous season, where themes of coach passion and caring were emphasized.

Finally, the team vision - developed by the coaches - almost perfectly illustrates the inherent

good attributed to the athletes’ participation, and how that good is assumed to benefit athletes and

community:

This Sport Team aspires to embed a culture that provokes stakeholders to transcend

their limitations, foster self-discipline and instills a high compete attitude that serves

the collective development of team and community.

The end justifies the means theme. This theme expresses the belief that it is essentially a

coach’s job to get the most out of her athletes and literally the ends justify whatever means

necessary to achieve those ends. This theme was not expressly emphasized in the media (except

through the tough coaching theme); however, in the literature, it is revealed through disciplinary

power, a sub-theme. Disciplinary power is often demonstrated through a mechanistic and linear

139
 140

understanding of training where training emphasizes the body and performance as well as athlete

docility (Avner, 2014; Denison et al., 2013). This was a major theme in the Summit book. Pat felt

it was her job to get the most out of her athlete by whatever means necessary. She taught them to

hate losing, and she felt that one of the most effective ways of getting her athletes’ attention was

to embarrass them. She unapologetically believed that it was okay to manipulate players to get

what you want from them and considered herself to be a master at this. At one point, Summit

declared that sometimes you had to hurt a young woman to her core – this is what it takes. She

quotes one of her players as saying, “Pat would bury you,” (pg. 267).

Similar to Coach Summit, our HC reported that there were a few times during the season

when she felt she had wounded a player to the core. However, the difference between Summit

and HC, was the remorse. HC was aware of her mistake, she talked about it with me and the other

coaches and it was not a manipulative move; instead it came out of frustration. Once she was able

to discuss and reconcile, she committed to changing her behaviour and focus on ‘only making

deposits.’

Some researchers have suggested that coaches lose control of their athletes when they

are not sufficiently hungry for excellence (Fox, 2006); while other researchers propose that

coaches may not intend to harm their athletes through emotionally abusive behaviour, but they

simply may not be aware of the implications of their behaviours (Stirling, 2013).

The coach as expert theme. In all circumstances, coaches are the experts, technological

experts and psychological experts. The coach must know what the athletes need and how far to

push them. In the media, this is portrayed as the belief that players (or parents) should never

question or challenge the coach. In the literature it is the same, the coach is the expert while the

players are the recipients (Avner, 2014; Johns & Johns, 2000; Purdy et al, 2009). With Pat

Summit this was a powerful theme. One of the first things her athletes learned was not to

140
 141

question her. She demanded buy-in that meant doing it her way. Pat felt that the players should

never see her waiver. It was her job to drain their egos and rebuild them her way.

A major theme from HC is ‘buy-in’. There is a belief that players have to buy into the

coach’s vision and way of being. The clear message was, ‘do what you’re told and accept the way

it’s done’, however what the athletes are buying into is seldom clearly articulated. When I first

started with the team, HC wanted to know how I was going to get the players to buy-in –

something she felt they hadn’t done the previous year. Typically, in SF practice, I might ask

questions around this, however, this was the type of language I was trying to change.

A good example of the coach as expert and buy-in themes occurred in one post-game talk

at the end of December, after a disappointing loss. HC had this to say to the players,

That's all we do is remind you don't ask you. And that's where I am as frustrated as s*** I

have bought in for 2 years now on trying to change so that we can get you to think and

come up with the answers and want to come from the inside (mocking voice), and want to

do better because you want to do better. You have the answer therefore you're going to

do. You have the answers and you're still choosing not to do cuz you're damn stubborn

and you haven't bought in.

Good players want this. This was the most surprising theme for me and the most

consistent across media, literature and Summit’s book. The discourse analysis revealed that

GPWTT implies that athletes must be positively compliant, the athletes don’t really know what

they want or what they are capable of and there are essentially three types of athletes: excellent,

good, and rejects (Cushion & Jones, 2003). In media, we learn that good athletes want to be

coached and great players want to be told the truth (Coach Mac, October 2015). Athletes should

also accept criticism with positivity and want to be challenged. The literature suggests that

athletes are taught to comply (Claringbould et al., 2015), that it is okay to trick athletes into

141
 142

thinking hard work is fun (Avner, 2014), athletes are expected to be highly obedient, coach

dependent, and athletes are even accused of allowing coaches to have power over them (Denison,

2010; Purdy et al., 2009). While it is also believed that good athletes accept coach authority and

are more greatly valued, there is also a positive bias toward athletes who are compliant (Cushion

& Jones, 2003) and the more talented an athlete is, the tougher she is expected to be

(Claringbould et al., 2015). Literature also revealed that coaches often assign capital to athletes

defining them inadvertently as favourites, good players, and rejects (Cushion & Jones, 2003).

Summit endorsed all of these themes, expecting her players to be grateful even in circumstances

when her behaviour was abhorrent. She also expressed the belief that athletes don’t know what

they are capable of, so they need her to tell them. She reminisced about players she believed were

extraordinarily talented and tough – meaning they could take her efforts to break them down.

I realized, upon reflection however, that most of the examples I selected for this theme

within my notes, actually represented HC’s frustration that her players were not ‘the good

players’ symbolized in this theme. She wanted more of that type of player. This theme is closely

related to coaching tough because good players want to be coached tough – they go hand-in-

hand. For example, at one point, HC was exasperated and frustrated because she felt the players

were not expressing enough remorse about their losses; in her mind, good players would have

expressed appropriate remorse.

Like previous researchers have indicated, she also assigned capital to certain players,

while she withheld it from others. Those esteemed players were certainly perceived as obedient

by the coaching staff, as they followed directions and did what was expected of them and were

hardworking and tough. There was one player in particular who was a favourite and often, even

during HC’s most humbling tirades, was positively recognized. For example, “So once again Z

142
 143

works her God dam ass off. What more do you want her to do? What more do you want her to

do? Is it fair for me to get mad at Z, when she does everything she’s asked?”

The players she perceived as good definitely received a lot of playing time, but her praise

for them was not as consistent as it was with her favourites. They could as easily be subjected to

her disdain, as were the rejects. However, all athletes were fair game if she felt they under-

performed, because she believed good or great athletes could take tough coaching. For example,

this was part of a post-game talk, where she was explaining how the other team impressed her

because their athletes could take tough coaching:

… they can take the words and effect change. Do you know what I mean? Like they can

take it and it doesn’t crush them. So, they’re mentally pretty tough. Right. When coaches

coach you hard, and you’re soft, you can’t recover. Right!

The “rejects” were a topic of conversation only in that she couldn’t figure out what to do

with them. And there were a few of these players. HC generally referred to these types of players

as “takers” - which was a pretty serious sin in her books. Takers divert the focus of the rest of the

team, bring down the energy of other players, always have problems, and are always concerned

about themselves. Takers take instead of give. For example, one player in particular was labelled

a taker, “Athlete X is a taker. Everyone on the team feels like they have to take care of her. She

sucks the energy out of the room.”

In conclusion, assert that was first of all necessary to establish the dominant discourses in

sport which influenced our coaches. My interpretation of the data suggest that are five master

narratives of sport that contribute to powerful coaching discourse: HWT, GPWTT, EJMT, CET,

GSMT.

143
 144

Coaches’ Behaviour

In the following section, I present evidence of the coaches’ learning, the second deductive

thematic analysis – in response to research question 1, part (a): Do SF coaching skills help

improve the communication skills/behaviours of the coaching staff?

Many theorists conceptualize learning as change (Burns, 1995; Rogers, 1969; Takaya,

2008). Burns suggested that learning results in behavioural changes that include both observable

and internal processes that are comparatively permanent, while Rogers believed that learning

resulted in personal change and growth, and Bruner felt that there is an interplay between culture,

learning and change (Takaya, 2008). Significantly, AR is a research orientation that aims to

influence change, the flourishing of participants and sustainable practices (Stringer, 2014).

Additionally, it is valuable to be reminded that case studies, such as this project, are implemented

to explain, describe, and answer ‘how’ questions (Creswell, 2012; Yin, 2003). Therefore, the

most significant contribution that this research can make, is to provide a thorough understanding

of how SF communication influenced the changes and sustainable practices that occurred with

the coaches and within the team. With this knowledge and understanding we will be better able to

address the serious concerns that currently plague coach learning and development, as well as,

athlete development, and sport practice in general. It may be then, that it is valuable and useful to

consider both the learning and the change, especially given the body of literature which indicates

coach learning and development programs are often ineffective (Cushion et al., 2014; Trudel et

al., 2010). I begin with HC, followed by AC, and I finish the section with a discussion of the

implications. I summarize the evidence of learning and change in a graph as well as a table.

144
 145

10

September
9

March
8

August
Solution-Focused Scale

February
November

January
July
6

October
5

December
4
3
2
1
0
AR Cycle AR Cycle AR Cycle AR Cycle AR Cycle AR Cycle AR Cycle AR Cycle AR Cycle
One One Two Two Two Two Three Three Four
(Best (Best (So What (So What (So What (So What (Thankyou (Thankyou (Season
Hopes) Hopes) Else) Else) Else) Else) Pat Pat Review)
Summit) Summit)

Solution-focused Skills Implementation

Figure 2. Solution-Focused Skills Implementation

Figure 2 illustrates the profile of HC’s SF skill implementation over the course of the

season. In other words, it provides a visual representation of how successful she was at using the

communication skills we were working on. This graph emphasizes that learning/change does not

always have a unidirectional, ascending delineation; instead, it has a jagged profile that represents

the difficulties and challenges associated with changing one’s way of being (WB).

I created this graph by scaling HC’s implementation of SF skills. Scaling is a fundamental

SF tool, using a 10 (high) to 0 or 1 (low) scale. Practitioners use scaling to both monitor and

support a client’s progress toward her goals; it is a subjective measure sometimes used to

represent personal experience that is difficult to express with words (Bannink, 2007; Kim Berg &

Szabó, 2005; Palmer, 2011). Significantly, it is used to represent change, especially small and

useful changes (de Shazer, Dolan, Korman, Trepper, McCollum, & Kim Berg, 2007). During my

data analysis, at the end of the season, I reviewed my research notes and transcripts multiple

times - looking for examples of success - with considerable reflection I scaled each month of our

145
 146

collaboration. I then asked my critical friend to review my assessment. This an example of how

SF scaling would be used in a coaching session to help the individual set higher goals. The

practitioner asks what the client would be doing at a point higher on the scale than what they are

not doing now. A brief explanation of how each month was scaled and what HC needed to do to

move one point up on the scale is presented in Appendix R.

In cycle one, HC and AC were fairly equal in their learning and adopting of the SF skills,

especially complementing, and using each other as accountability partners. Cycle two began

positively with our team retreat, however once the competitive season began the CD created an

enormous challenge for HC. At this point, AC became my embedded champion. Despite AC’s

efforts at consistency and moments of success outside of the competitive environment, there was

a gap between HC’s learning and behaviour. Cycle two ended with little improvement. However,

cycle three proved to be the turning point. Something clicked, perhaps it was the persistence of

AC and myself, or the success AC was having with the athletes as a result of the AAR process;

whatever it was, HC began to notice the difference between her behaviour when she was being

solution-focused and when she was being problem focused. This precipitated an enormous

change in her behaviour and the performance of the team. Finally, at our year-end review, HC

and AC were able to shed some light on how they perceived our intervention over the course of

the season.

The following brief section of the transcript illustrates the coaches’ perception of our

efforts:

Me: Was our work effective, worthwhile, helpful?

HC: A lot of things were very positive, honestly. I think the team learned to listen a lot better.
They learned to be uncomfortable with the information. I thought we were successful. In
terms of the issues that we had last year, we cleaned that up and we were very diligent
with that, there was a lot more consistency this year than there was the year before which
was very beneficial.
Me: As coaches what was the process like for you?

146
 147

HC: I thought at the beginning of the year, in the summertime, I felt that it was just heavy. It was
like wow, we've got to do a lot of work…. but at the time I thought, oh my God, I don't
know if I can do this to the end of the year….and then it became second nature.
Me: I'm actually really curious…. what makes it seem that way initially?
HC: We are so used to giving them the information….
Me: It must seem overwhelming because you are changing your fundamental way of
communicating?
HC: (she explained that this was one of the frustrating aspects for her, that she felt she was
working hard to change herself, the way she was communicating, but she didn’t feel she
was seeing the change in the athletes quickly enough). I felt like, now I’m at the tipping
point, I’m doing it…I’m doing it and I don’t see any change….. I’m giving you (athletes)
what you want, so now…now, now, it’s your turn.
Me: Despite you saying how overwhelming it felt, you actually started really high with it and
then when their performance went down, you had this dip. But AC was so consistent
because her role on the team was different – was that helpful?
HC: AC was positive all the time, 24/7 and I was this negative Nancy a lot.
AC: (AC pointed out that that they worked hard together as coaches, reminding each other to say
things differently because it wasn’t natural at first.) But what was encouraging was the
answers we were getting!
HC: So, the next phase to that and I think the most critical part, is they (the players) found the
reason for what they needed to do, so that was good…through the questions and the
discovery.
Me: What was the value in terms of general outcomes or for the athletes?
HC: I think to me, making them more self-aware in the now, teaching them how to be reflective.
How to look back, reflect….
Me: If you had to sum up in a couple of sentences, for you personally as a coach or as a coaching
team, what was the value that you would say to other coaches?
HC: I think it’s just the way the world is moving. I think it's the way we need to
(communicate)…. I think it's more consistent when it comes from them (the athletes).
And I think there's more buy-in…. I think there could be more collective buy-in. I would
love for this to occur on teams where males are coaching. I think it is beneficial to the
coaching world, to the society as a whole but I think it would be extremely beneficial if
the male coaches, coaching women, would be engaged in the process because they're the
non-talkers. They don't dig talking about feelings.
AC: So, shouldn’t this be a component of the NCCP coaching program?

Throughout the course of the project, evidence of how HC’s use of SF language and

communication elements improved is evident in the transcripts, similar to the example above.

The following table provides a summary of SF skills taken from a transcription, in a game that

the team lost.

147
 148

Table 3
Evidence of HC’s Implementation of Solution-Focused Communication Skills
SF Skills Transcript Example (a Lost Game)

Lead with Questions How did that feel?

Any concerns?

Any questions?

How did it feel for you, athlete? How did it feel for you athlete?

Reframing That is something you can do out there!

We can repair that, that is an easy fix.

I mean there were moments where we were kind sagging and we gave the
opponents opportunities but when we started attacking, penetrating, getting
everyone moving and finding people, I thought it was a lot better.

Key Words Courage, manage, different, do(ing),

Feedback I thought that you had some great, great moments agreed?

You attacked the rim hard, and we are proud of that

Kudos to you for doing that.

Relationship Focus HC asked 8 different players about how they felt about their contribution to
the game
(Questions)
And it’s not about mistakes, it’s just about being aware and helping
everybody out.

We got some great performances from a lot of people out there today and it
was a team effort in terms of a defensive way and an offensive way

Perspective (Curiosity) Debbie how did it feel for you?

How did it feel out there?

148
 149

Conclusion

How did Changes Occur?

Typically, SF practitioners do not focus or spend much time on underlying problems,

believing instead that although behaviours may have latent causes, this generally does not

preclude more helpful behaviour from happening (Berg & Szabó, 2005). As such, this section is

decidedly unsolution-focused, but a necessary part of the dissertation. In addition, it describes

how SF communication disrupted dominant, prevalent coaching discourses – part (c) of research

question 1. This section is important in other ways that hold me amenable to the personal

relationships I built over the course of this project. Taking the time to understand and explain

HC’s behaviour not only humanizes her but it shines a much-needed light on coach behaviour in

general. Increased understanding is a goal of AR (Stringer, 2014).

As mentioned earlier, my understanding of the power and influence of the sport

discourses can be divided into two eras, before Pat Summit and after Pat Summit. Until I read her

book, I was working from a theoretical perspective of coach behaviour that portrayed coaches as

problematic and abusive (Stirling, 2013). My focus was trained on the literature that supported

this perspective. It was my fundamental belief that SF coaching could revolutionize how coaches

coach and as a result, liberate athletes. Coaches were guilty in my world, which might help to

explain why HC took two steps back for every step forward in the first half of the season. In the

meantime, I have come to appreciate three fundamental influences that summarize my

understanding of coach education and development as a direct result of this project. I am calling

these influences, the way of being (WB), competing discourses (CD) and unvolitional blindness.

The Way of Being. Carl Rogers (1989) suggested that the process of becoming who we

truly are involves discovering how much of our lives are directed by what we believe we should

149
 150

be, or ought to be doing, behaving, and feeling. In some spheres these are called life scripts

(Fivush, Habermas, Waters, & Zaman, 2011), which inform autobiographical narratives by

defining culturally shared norms about typical life events such as the age one graduates, or drives,

or marries, or has children, for example. Life scripts are descriptive as well as prescriptive and

they serve as part of the framework for how one forms identity and a life story (Fivush et al.,

2011)). In other words, our life stories give us a sense of self and how we are to function in the

world, so much so, that the authors (Fivush et al., 2011) suggest that we are “defined by the way

in which we remember and reconstruct our past experiences” (pg. 324). Gendlin (1962) and

Rogers (1980) might call this ‘experiencing’, a continuous flow of experiences that individuals

use as reference to understand and discover the meaning of those experiences. We use past events

to help us make sense of current events and visa-versa; they are indicators of our development

and considered critical with regard to our sense of identity (Fivush et al., 2011).

Interestingly, both Pat Summit and HC share descriptive and prescriptive life scripts.

Descriptively, they grew up in the same generation and share a similar conservative, small town,

large family backgrounds; they both have a history as elite players and both were (are) female

interuniversity coaches when female coaches were few and far between. Prescriptively, their

autobiographical narratives would have been strongly influenced by the life scripts of that

cultural era, which emphasized hard work, respect for authority, gratitude and compliance. There

were also strongly defined life scripts regarding education, marriage, roles and children (Stone,

1995). In other words, many things they should and ought to be doing, thinking and feeling was

scripted culturally. Significantly, sport would have reinforced some of these scripts, in particular

those associated with hard work, authority, respect, gratitude, and compliance – traditional sport

values (Eitzin, 2016) - as I identified above in the sport discourse themes. Assuming it is true that

life stories provide the framework for our sense of self and guide behaviour, then the behaviour

150
 151

of both coaches, especially with regard to examples cited in the hard work theme, good players

want this theme and coach as expert theme, become easier to understand.

In fact, these life scripts inform what is known as autobiographical memory, which is

much more than the simple recall of a past life event; it is memory deeply textured by emotions

and evaluations of the event, in ways that help to provide explanations, intentions and even

motivations (Fivush et al., 2011) – like the experiences described above (Gendlin, 1962; Rogers,

1980). According to Fivush and colleagues, autobiographical narratives are formed by and inform

cultural narratives. These authors also suggested that autobiographical memories and narratives

are how we create our sense of self that is coherent across time. In the context of this study, as

well as sport in general, I propose that the sport discourse themes I have identified, in particular

the hard work theme, good players want this theme, coach as expert theme and the GSM theme,

act as master narratives or schematic representations that contain abstracted information about the

cultural standards that individuals should follow and use to position themselves while

constructing/sharing an autobiographical narrative” (Fivush et al, 2011; pg. 334) for coaches. As

a result of the mutual reinforcement between their autobiographical narratives and the master

narratives, their sense of self, or way of being, is profoundly rooted and therefore resistant to the

change that is sought in coach education and development programs - as is so often cited in

literature (Cushion et al., 2014; Cushion et al., 2010; Gilbert & Trudel, 1999).

Researchers theorize that by attending to personal biographies and situating an

individual’s responses, values, and emotions at the centre, we build a more comprehensive

understanding of their interrelationships because this is how individuals make meaning in their

lives (McCarthy, Sullivan, & Wright, 2006). Significantly, the authors (McCarthy et al., 2006

advised that when we aim to consider agency, we should first and foremost look at ‘the

rootedness of volition in the embodied, relationally responsive emotional life of a person”

151
 152

(p.424); we should begin with the experience of the emotions, feelings and values of the

individual.

Unvolitional blindness. A number of researchers have referenced the ‘willful blindness’

of sport coaches (Cook, Kerr, & Stirling, 2014); their deliberate (Hellman, 2009) and/or

cultivated ignorance (Rice, 2013) about the outcomes for athletes associated with their behaviour.

Heffernan (2011), with her definition of willful blindness, might assert that elite coaches should

have or could have known the potential harm of their behaviours, and when they act as if they

didn’t or do not know, they are being willfully blind. She suggested that cognitive dissonance

(Festinger, 1962) helps to explain willful blindness in that we all strive for consonance and

harmony with our thought processes and when that process is disrupted we are forced to learn

new ways of being. Those who are willfully blind however, avoid or even reject evidence that

challenges existing attitudes and beliefs and as a result they are able to maintain their sense of

self in relative harmony – avoiding cognitive dissonance.

Instead of willful blindness, perhaps it should be called un-volitional blindness. When we

learn that a coach believes she needs to teach players to hate losing to the extent that she would

make them practice until 4:00 am, vomiting into strategically placed garbage bins (a Pat Summit

example); or when we hear a coach openly mock and humiliate her players (a HC example), we

can imagine that she is not willfully blind. I propose that coaches are so rooted in the discourses

of sport, which endorse and enhance their autobiographical narratives, that they are un-

volitionally blind. They are hostage to their way of being, which has been carefully curated by

the great sport myth.

Similarly, the cultural orientations framework (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961) explored

how culture works at the individual level. Within this perspective, researchers study how values

and beliefs guide behaviour and the evaluation of behaviour; at the same time, the cultural

152
 153

orientations framework examines the beliefs and assumptions of individuals with regard to how

the world works (Maznevsiki, Gomez, DiStefano, Noorderhaven, & Wu, 2002). This framework

aids in our understanding of values and how those values influence individual motivation and

behaviour. They described values as beliefs that lead to positive outcomes and behaviours. We

can examine individuals and culture at the same time (McCarthy, Sullivan, & Wright, 2006).

Our theoretical understanding of values and beliefs is integral to our understanding of

coaching behaviour because coaches’ practices are inescapably affected by their personal values

and beliefs (Carless & Douglas, 2011), either consciously or unconsciously. As a result, coaches

may have little understanding of why they do what they do (Carless & Douglas, 2011), their

reaction or response is what Bakhtin (1993) described as emotional-volitional, grounded in their

value of the other (player) – which, in the case of coaches, is influenced by the life scripts

described above that tell them players ought to be, grateful, respectful and work hard. In other

words, their response is un-volitional.

Although coaches may not understand the influences or impacts of their behaviours, this

does not mean however, that coaches can’t learn to differentiate themselves from the discourses

and narratives of sport and to become self-integrated. In fact, differentiation and integration is

considered a critical mechanism for growth and development (Akrivou, 2008). It is how our

objective (it), subjective (I) and cultural worlds (we) are conceptualized in the process of

meaning making in our personal transformation and development (Akrivou, 2008). Individuals

who can differentiate as a person actualize their own particular sense of self and potential (Olcay,

1998), they can differentiate themselves from culture; while integrated individuals are self-

integrated and they can relate meaningfully to others (Akrivou, 2008). To be self-integrated is

similar to Roger’s harmony and unity of self (consonance). People with high integration, or

153
 154

consonance, are more actualized and less likely to be controlled by external influences (Akrivou,

2008).

Competing discourses. The third influence I identified as being problematic for coach

learning and development is competing discourses. Competing discourses are those narratives

that challenge or confront the coach’s WB. In this study, competing discourses provoked Coach

at two different levels, personally and professionally - which according to my WB theory, are

completely intertwined. For example, in the beginning, during the learning phase of our project,

SF theory and practice conflicted with the dominant sport narrative/theme of coach as expert

(CET) and authority. In direct contrast, SF practice asks coaches to lead from behind and assume

a not-knowing stance; the coach leads with questions rather than directive statements and adopts

a position of curiosity. The coach as expert theme and even the good players want this theme,

promote and encourage an authoritative context where the coach provides the athlete with the

information they believe the athlete needs. Athletes are told what to do, how to do it and when to

do it (McMorris & Hale, 2006; Yandall, 2015). At our year-end review the HC had this to say

about the coach as expert theme and its’ inherent conflict with SF practice,

And we're so used to giving them the information…. because were on a timeline…so

that's part of it… and as coaches, you have an hour and 55 minutes, or whatever... So, it's

like, and you look at these kids in and you just want ... just get there!

From a SF practice perspective, it is the coach’s job to facilitate the athlete’s development

which includes critical thinking, self-reflection, and autonomy as well as performance. This

fundamental, humanistic perspective is at odds with current coaching practice and once again, our

HC described the problem in this way,

It's a matter of stop and then figuring that out. It's that fine line between, and that's

where I struggled this year…….and there is that fine line between, how do I push you and

154
 155

then respect that you have insecurities and that's going to play a huge part in your

preparation to play.

The problem as perceived by HC, was that using the SF approach took too long. She felt she

didn’t have time for the athlete’s learning process - it was/is easier to tell them what to do.

Another competing discourse arises from the SF perspective of reframing (Cavanaugh &

Grant, 2010) which was one of our formal learning sessions in the summer. In general reframing

helps to shift the focus from the problem to a self-identified solution, opening up different

possibilities and choices (Cavanaugh & Grant, 2010). Reframing, in our case, involved helping

the HC to reframe her perception of the athletes’ effort, attitude and performance. This, again,

was challenging because coaches are trained to look for problems - what their athletes are not

doing well. Video analysis is a perfect example of this. Typically, video analysis involves the

coaches reviewing game tape, looking for all the athletes’ mistakes, and then reviewing those

mistakes either individually or as a team. I asked the HC to do the exact opposite, to look for

examples of what the athletes did well, then ask the athletes how they managed to execute that

skill so well. It was a hard sell but when the HC did it she was amazed at the results, “It was an

important opportunity for learning.”

Reframing within the game, was more difficult. I encouraged HC to look for, notice and

amplify what the players were doing well within the game, when they were making good choices,

executing skills well. I encouraged her to compliment them and when they came off the court.

Yet it wasn’t until February, that the benefits of such an approach became evident to her. She

noticed, of her own volition, that all the coaches were criticizing the athletes and being negative,

and that this was perhaps contributing to a feeling of discouragement amongst the team. Her

effort to reframe was exceptional once she made this correlation.

155
 156

Although there were many questions and conversations regarding these attributes and

how they could be enacted or embodied, they made intellectual sense to HC and AC. Through

role playing and various activities, HC experienced this sense making; therefore, outside of the

athletic environment, the conflict between the old beliefs/values and the new beliefs/values was

low. There wasn’t much cognitive dissonance. In fact, there was evidence of integration in the

manner in which HC engaged so fully with the material, the activities, the conversations and her

commitment to the study. This evidence was confirmed by my CF, who stated that he witnessed

genuine engagement, investment and an exchange of ideas during the sessions he attended.

It wasn’t until the athletic season began that the conflict for HC arose – as predicted by

one of my committee members. In the heat of competition, SF not only confronted and

challenged dominant sport narratives, it appeared to confront HC’s WB - and this was what posed

the problem - to the degree of almost derailing the entire project. HC stated that, “this SF stuff

isn’t working…it’s too positive.” When she told me, “I need to be able to coach hard,” she

implied that SF practice didn’t allow her to coach hard. At one point, the personal conflict was so

great that she used it to reprimand the players, telling them she had been working hard at

changing for almost two years, while they weren’t working hard at all. I was unprepared for the

level of conflict because I hadn’t appreciated that I was confronting her WB. If I knew then what

I know now, I would do things differently as I explain further on.

At a professional level, the conflict was heightened by other coaches, staff and

administration. As mentioned previously, the other ACs were not fully engaged in our study.

Other than attending some (not all) coach learning sessions and the retreat at the beginning of the

year, they were not participants in the process. As a result, their sport scripts were directed by the

master narratives of dominant sport discourse. It became apparent that SF was also confronting

their WB, as they were frustrated with the process and made it known. In a highly impressable

156
 157

meeting with all the coaches, where I was trying to demonstrate how SF practice could positively

impact the situation, one AC contradicted me and said, “HC has to be able to coach hard – she

should be able to yell at the players and they should be able to take it.” In addition, some of the

ACs bonded over their sport scripts. Toward the end of season, I would say the turning point for

HC with regard to SF, occurred when she told me that the other AC coaches were being too

negative. She had become aware of their negativity during practice and even games. She said she

needed more voices on the bench because she was only hearing the negative and this became a

point of discussion at our end of year coach retreat. I realized this dynamic far too late in the

season and in fact, it was HC who made the connection.

It is easy to see how competing discourses can influence the success of coach learning and

development – especially in highly competitive environments. I maintain, that without SF skills,

the coaches don’t really have the tools or the ability to differentiate and self-integrate (to be fully

self-actualizing) because they are inextricably rooted in their autobiographical narratives, which

are in turn, deeply rooted in the scripts and discourses of sport.

It is also valuable to reinforce the utility of the identifying the master narratives identified

through this study. Discourse theory suggests that narratives or discursive themes such as the

GSM (Coakley, 2015) are often accepted as truth, despite examples to the contrary (Pringle,

2007). Within literature the master narrative or themes identified, without referring to them as

master narratives; typically, they are explored as individual phenomena and not for their

collective influence. For example, the hard work theme has been attributed to a training culture

that stresses diligence and hard work through individual and physical exertion (Claringbould,

Knoppers, & Jacobs, 2015). While the coach as expert theme is a popular discursive narrative in

sport psychology literature because sport coaches hold privileged positions of authority, upon

whom athletes are taught to rely - coaches hold knowledge, resources and influence, that athletes

157
 158

need to be considered successful (Johns & Johns, 2000). The ends justify the means theme is

supported by researchers who suggest that in order to be considered successful, coaches must

‘above all’ (as cited in Denison, 2010, pp. 465) be able to make players do what they want. The

good players want this theme is reinforced by the writings of a number of researchers who report

that the discursive theme is cultivated to represent ‘highly disciplined, obedient, coach

dependent’ athletes (Avner, 2014, pp. 153).

Other Evidence. At the end of the season I sent two sets of transcripts to HC, AC and my

CF. I provided a legend of the 6 SF elements that we had focused on over the course of the

season: 1. Lead with questions; 2. Reframing; 3. Key words; 4. Feedback; 5. Relationship

building; 6. Perspective. One of the transcripts was from HC’s low point in the season with

regard to her position on the SF scale (2) and the second transcript was from the end of the

season when she was positioned at a 6. I asked each individual to read the transcripts and

independently highlight the transcripts using the legend provided to identify all the SF elements. I

did not receive any highlighted transcripts from HC, despite asking her twice. I learned later from

AC, that she did not feel comfortable with this exercise. However, I did receive highlighted

transcripts from AC and my CF. My CF provided notes, while AC did not. Table 1 provides

examples of HC’s SF skills that were highlighted in the second transcript.

The first transcript was highlighted exactly the same by both AC and my CF. They each

highlighted two elements: one compliment and a section regarding perspective. My CF

summarized it this way, ‘Most of what I read were rhetorical questions which she answered

herself. I read no perspective questions that could be interpreted as being strength based, having

positive assumptions or that were encouraging. I read no relationship building statements or

questions. The only consistent theme (key words) I read was related to her team’s short comings

158
 159

and with regards to reframing I read nothing related to what HC wanted to see from her own

team, she did however speak about the other team’s strengths and why they were so successful.’

In the second transcript, my CF and the AC each highlighted many SF elements, with AC

finding examples of all 6 elements and my CF finding examples of 4 out of 6. For example, my

CF provided this summary, ‘There were a few examples of HC leading with questions. HC also

reframed a few times. There were many clear, specific and timely compliments, especially early

in the talk and during the actual team question/answer sections. Although there were no

relationship questions or statements, there were a number of curiosity questions.’

The Assistant Coach

In this section I describe the critical role of AC as SF team champion and how it was

essential to HC’s success as well as the athletes’ success. As an early adopter and team

champion, this section is less about the process of her learning and more about all the best

practices we co-constructed to embed the SF language, support HC and enhance team culture.

There was never any question about AC becoming solution-focused. From the first

learning session she embraced the philosophy and principles wholeheartedly. She attributes this

to her background in education. The generative nature of the questioning, leading from behind

and a stance of curiosity came quite naturally to her. AC’s background in education and her role

as assistant coach (full-time volunteer) insulated her from the predominant discourses of sport.

Her WB did not conflict with the principles and practices of SFC and as a result, she was less

impacted by competing discourses. However, it was her desire to help facilitate a positive change

in everyone’s experiences that provided her motivation. As mentioned previously, our goals and

objectives were aligned and as a result, we worked extraordinarily well together. This email that I

received from her very early in our learning summarizes her commitment to the process:

159
 160

Elaine,

I realize that these are powerful questions in getting the athletes and the team moving

forward. We should copyright this material. Their comments bring us to a different level.

It's brilliant. AC.

I realized immediately that AC would play a key role in the success of this project. She

became the SF champion. Champions and early adopters are considered in various organizational

contexts to be important, if not crucial, to the change/learning process (Hendy & Barlow, 2012;

Shaw, Howard, West, Crabtree, Nease, Tutt, & Nutting, 2012). Typically, they influence and

facilitate change in others by validating and promoting the project with passion and persistence.

Significantly, champions also help provide a sensemaking to others that enhances understanding

and meaning within the organization or team and this helps to create the necessary change in

values (Hendy & Barlow, 2012). Champions, who must be considered credible by other members

of the organization, engage in the process, have a sense of urgency and are open to learning

(Chrusciel, 2008). AC embodied all of these attributes.

It was AC’s consistency and persistence that influenced HC the most. She never wavered

in her commitment to the implementation of SFC. She was respectful of the struggles HC was

having and never contributed to the CD, she never pushed or overstepped what she felt were the

boundaries of her role. Yet, she was persistent. For example, this is an excerpt from an email she

sent HC, when HC was really struggling. In the following email, she is encouraging HC to use

the SF scaling we had discussed many times in our coffee chats:

I have been thinking about our conversation from yesterday … I really like the idea of

scaling effort. I think it will make a difference as everyone will know your expectation.

When you ask them what level they are at and they say 7 and you say I see it is a 4 …

show me a 4.5 or a 5… I think it will up the effort level… I think it will transfer to games

160
 161

as you can tell them their pressure is a 6 and we need an 8, I think they will understand

and be able to communicate and respond when you ask them what are we not doing at a 6

that we need to be doing at an 8… the ownership will be on each individual’s

performance and should transfer into a collective improvement…. it mirrors your … give

me 1% more … It reminds me of what I hear you say, as an example of how you would

speak to an underperforming teammate “Come on athlete, you’re better than that”.… It is

not a put down…it’s a dig deep…and it helps my confidence as I hear you saying you

believe in me…

It was this type of persistent support that eventually convinced HC not to abandon our efforts.

If I had to describe the change in culture from what it was before our intervention to what it

was at the end of season, I would have to say that change is most evident in the nature of the

conversations and relationships; they are more adult-adult than parent-child. The following email

I received from AC summarizes the changes of both coaches and athletes nicely:

‘I have been very impressed with HC’s coaching and leadership. She is encouraging and

supportive, when players get to the bench, she has them sit down next to her and explains

what she wants them to do in a calm manner. Players are starting to ask questions... in our

chalk talk sessions, we've had hands up asking for more clarifications. This carried over into

the game... several players asked HC in a 1-on-1 and in a group time out setting, is this how

….. ? and HC drew it out to show them. We've had coaches’ meetings to further our

improvements. Sometimes just HC and I and sometimes all 3 of us. Both types of sessions got

us to where we wanted to go. I do hear HC repeating my suggestions or language, so you are

right, she does listen and filters it into her plans/goals. It has been great… we are noticing

things that might have gone unnoticed…’

161
 162

The following section summarizes some of our SF interventions designed to support our

communication practices.

Athlete Interviews. AC conducted four sessions of athlete interviews over the course of

the season. The questions for each interview can be seen in Appendices L, M, P, and Q. The

process for developing the interview questions was collaborative. At each point in the season HC,

AC and I discussed what information might be helpful; what did the coaches need to know that

would enable them to do things differently? Following that conversation AC devised a list of 4 or

5 interview questions that were generative and solution-focused. She sent the questions to me for

review and more often than not, I sent back questions about her questions or suggested some

other things to consider. For example, this is a response I sent to her toward the end of the season.

Here are some things you might want to consider:

• Rapport building for a few moments} what did they do this weekend that was fun,

helpful? Thanking them for being present.

• Have they already discussed, as a group, what they would like to do differently as

captains? If not, is this something they want to do – work together, collaboratively to be

excellent leaders – Is this something we can help them with Monday mornings?

• If so, what should that look like? Will they set goals every Monday morning, implement

and then we review the following Monday? Do they have other ideas?

• What about the Dig Deep vision for the team – how will their weekly goals reflect that?

• What is the highest priority right now?

This process often took a week or more. Once the questions were approved by HC,

interviews began. AC conducted all the interviews and they were all recorded. During the

interview process, which often extended over several days, she sent me updates, insights and

162
 163

more questions. I simply supported her. What surprised both HC and AC about these interviews

was the athletes’ engagement. They noted that in previous years they couldn’t get the athletes to

talk, each interview barely lasted 20 minutes and it was a painful 20 minutes. This year, AC was

scheduling 30-40 minutes per interview to accommodate their responses. Over the course of the

year, when HC met with the athletes one-on-one and asked them what was working well for

them, they consistently expressed their appreciation for AC’s interviews, which helped them with

their goal setting. In addition, AC summarized each athlete’s interview and sent the summary to

them for their approval; the summaries were then sent to HC. Here is an athlete’s response to that

summary.

Hi AC!

Yes these goals look just about right.

I really enjoyed my talk with you as well and it really had me reflecting on how I can best

help the team. It's also good to know that I have great support from everyone while I work

to achieve my goals.

See you tomorrow!

-Athlete

Each athlete was expected to bring the journal they had made at our team retreat to every

interview for the purposes of taking notes and reflecting. This small detail was perhaps an

important piece in this process. Figure 3 is a photo of the all the journals the athletes made. The

collage on each cover represented not only the personal best hopes of each athlete but contained

images of the team’s best hopes as well.

163
 164

Figure 3. Team journals collaged to represent individual and team goals.

The After Action Review. The After Action Review was created by the U.S. army as a

structured learning process (Baird, Holland, & Deacon, 1999; Darling, Parry, & Moore, 2005)

and is now used by organizations around the world. The AAR process helps participants learn

what worked and what didn’t work (consistent with SF practice), with the idea being that learning

is accomplished while performing and present actions are analyzed to inform future actions

(Baird, Holland, & Deacon, 1999), which is again, consistent with the preferred future of SFC.

Simply, it allows those involved to learn what happened, why it happened, what worked and what

learning has taken place (Cronin & Andrews, 2009). Importantly, the AAR process helps to

facilitate a greater sense of self-awareness and collaboration; it also requires the contribution of

everyone involved, encourages courage and welcomes disagreement (Cronin & Andrews, 2009).

The AAR uses 4 questions:

1. What was expected to happen?

2. What actually happened?

3. What is the difference between the two?

164
 165

4. What did we learn?

The process helps participants to feel valued and respected and emphasizes their contribution to

future actions (Cronin & Andrews, 2009). Researchers suggest that companies that master this

process have a sustainable competitive advantage (Darling, Parry, & Moore, 2005).

I introduced the concept to HC and AC in November believing it could be extremely

helpful and useful to the athletes by enhancing their self-awareness, reflection, problem solving,

accountability and strategic thinking – attributes that HC complained were lacking. But it wasn’t

until we hit rock bottom over the holidays and into the New Year that HC was willing to try it, as

a last resort. Our first attempt did not convince her. I suggested that AC facilitate the AAR

following every game, once HC was finished her post-game talk. Neither AC nor HC were

convinced that asking the same 4 questions following every game was going to be helpful but I

had enough capital at this point that they were willing to try. To challenge them even further, I

also insisted that following each question AC ask “What Else” a minimum of 3 times, but

optimally 5 times. What else is an SFC tool that helps clients explore details. AC was mortified,

“The athletes are going to think I’m crazy.” I asked her to try it anyway.

The first AAR was not very helpful. HC and some ACs stayed in the room, which made

the athletes feel judged and self-conscious. At our coffee chat the following week, HC told me

that she didn’t like the AAR because the athletes were “too positive” and she felt they didn’t take

responsibility for their poor performance. I explained that one of the principles of a good AAR is

that it is important to create a safe space (Cronin & Andrews, 2009). The discussion is not about

blame, but learning. She agreed that from that point forward all the coaches except AC would

leave the room. The AARs were transformative by everyone’s account. AC was amazed at the

effect of asking what else 5 times; it elicited details and participation. The AARs were recorded

and transcribed. AC sent the transcriptions to HC with the athletes’ awareness and consent.

165
 166

In the beginning, the athletes were leery, not quite sure what this was all about. We were

concerned about athlete engagement following the game, knowing that they most likely just

wanted to shower and go home; however, it is important to conduct AARs as soon as possible to

the event so it is fresh in everyone’s mind (Baird, Holland, & Deacon, 1999). We figured 5 -10

extra minutes were worth it. I have included here an entire transcript of an AAR. Every line

beginning with a P is a different player. Note the number of players who contribute to the

conversation. Note the number of what else’s the AC asks, and the detailed answers it elicits. It is

also wonderful to see how the athletes figured out what they need to be doing differently, and

what they did well.

AC: Ladies, we are gonna through the, ah, the same four questions. So what was
supposed to happen?
P: Supposed to win
P: Keep a high effort (AC: yeah)
P: Dig deeper
P: Limit the strengths of players 21, 13, 14
AC: Anything else?
P: We were supposed to watch their key player and keep them from scoring.
AC: Kay, what else
P: Everyone has to be responsible for guarding players on the other team, and that didn’t
always happen
AC: Anything else?
P: We were supposed to play offensively and take risks
AC: Anything else?.... pause…..So what actually happened?
P: We had moments of that but not the whole game
P: Better defense and always on our check
P: We got the …. bias on defence (yeah)
P: We had a lot of transitions, uhm, one too many times and it shouldn’t have happened
P: We didn’t have enough players on offense, some were standing around watching and
….in transition
P: It was the same with offense, everyone would watch
AC: So why was there a difference?
P: Like we talked, we talked a lot, but then there was some where there was just
miscommunication and there’d be several players guarding one person which made
someone else available.
AC: Anything else?
P: I think at points, we just had lack of focus. So like when HC was talking about subs
like we kinda came on uhm, yeah, I think at times it was a lack of focus.
AC: You’re saying that when we subbed, what was different? What was the issue?

166
 167

P: Instead of upping the intensity (yeah, yeah) it died down

P: It’s like relaying the information and making sure that they know, like what’s
happening
P: I’d say, like, at times I felt like there was a hesitation, like hesitation, so like be
aggressive on defence and hesitation to try to run a new offence. Did anyone feel, like
they like, Ahh I shouldn’t really be doing this like (yeah, yeah)
P: Yeah, I felt that myself
P: Like there was a hesitation of the actually like plays, like our games were like, oh, I
should have caught it. I’m guilty of it too, like I don’t want to pressure (yeah, yeah),
penalties…
AC: Anything else?
P: We dominated a bit of the game later on. That was good, like yah
P: We kept fighting like the whole time, even though we were down by a lot we fought
back and brought it back, and we just like kept fighting so
AC: Anything else? How was the energy on the bench?
P: Really good
P: It was way better than it was yesterday
P: I think it could still improve
Ps: Yeah, yeah
AC: Looking forward, ahh, what are we going to do differently?
P: I think we can bring this into practice, like the intensity level, because that’s the only
way it’s going to translate into games, like we do everything at full speed, push each other
like we pushed Team X today
P: Build from it
AC: Anything else?
P: Back to the bench thing. Athlete mentioned this yesterday, uhm, yesterday and it was
improved but for like defensive, stops and defensive things, we should get more hyped up
about it, like there was a violation, (yeah) and I don’t think anyone stood up for it, or
anyone clapped I don’t think we were paying attention even (yeah), so stuff like that we
have to make sure to get hyped on defensive stops.
P. I felt like, we did like, we’re starting to get the holding each other accountable thing.
Like I was trying to do it a lot today with people and like same thing, we need to bring
that to practice, holding each accountable in practice so it translates to games
AC: Yeah
P: And then I think moving forward, like everyone please, for the love of God, go over
the plays like it’s your day job. Like, cause when we’re in the game and after we run the
plays for like 2 minutes, like they know the offense and we need to switch, but like we
can’t switch it if like no one knows what’s going on. And like if you need any help come
to any of us. I’m happy to go earlier to practice, so like we could do a walk through. Like
there’s so many different ways to learn the plays, but like we’re over halfway done our
season and it’s hard to run offense if we’re all still stuck
AC: Anything else?........

At our end of season interview, I asked HC and AC about the AAR process. AC discussed

how initially the 5th year players did not contribute much, they almost rolled their eyes but it

167
 168

wasn’t long before they were fully engaged and answering the questions with details that were

incredibly insightful. HC suggested that this was because AC had such a good relationship with

the athletes and they knew she wasn’t going away. Both coaches insist it is a practice that they

will continue.

Conclusions

To summarize, the analysis of the coaching data involved two thematic analyses. The first

analysis a deductive/inductive analysis established five master narratives of sport (HWT, CET,

GSMT, GPWTT, EJMT) and how those narratives were enacted by the coach. The second

analysis was deductive and the results identified how the intervention influenced a change in

coaches’ behaviour: more complimenting and noticing of small changes in athletes’

performances, leading with questions, more curiosity and less sarcasm, a public commitment to

change behaviour and the awareness of how these discourses were affecting coach behaviour.

Additionally, reviewing the results with through the lenses of humanistic and cultural

psychology, I discovered three major influences that help to explain how those changes occurred:

WB, unvolitional blindness and competing discourses. Similarly, the results suggest that the

influence of an embedded SF champion in the role of AC was instrumental, as were best practices

such as the After Action Review that supported the humanistic, SF model.

Research Question Two: Athlete Findings

Does the intervention influence the self-actualizing processes of these athletes?

Athlete Experiences

Previously, I explained how interpretive analytic approaches ask how a phenomenon

unfolds over time while a critical or action approach might ask how it could be made better

(Elliot & Timulak, 2005). Therefore, in an effort to remain consistent with the humanistic, critical

168
 169

perspective of this project, I used interpretive comparative analysis to analyze the data provided

by the athletes to help reveal any evolution of athlete’s self-actualization processes. This strategy

involves taking one data item (an interview, statement, theme) and comparing it to others for

similarities and differences that might reveal contextual patterns that help make sense of the

singularity of the system (Yanow, 2014) in which we found ourselves. I begin with the peer

interviews, then present my examination of the athlete interviews (conducted by AC) followed by

a section with my interpretation of the AAR processes and how they contributed to our turning

point. The results suggest that the athletes’ self-actualizing processes were enhanced.

Peer Interview Perspectives. The peer interviews were conducted on the first day of our

pre-season retreat. The athletes had been divided into four groups through collaborative

discussions that included me, HC, and some of the ACs. All four teams were composed of

experienced and rookie athletes. I formulated the interview questions and sought approval from

HC. There were four questions:

1. What are your best hopes for the season?

2. What do you value most about your coach?

3. How does being part of this team help your personal development?

4. What is the biggest challenge you face, and how have you developed the resources to deal

with it?

The first question is often used to open SFC sessions and helps to get goals. The second

question, I hoped would give me (us) an idea of what it is about coaches and HC in particular,

that is important to them and as such, would give me an idea of how, or if, that changed over the

course of the season. In addition, after answering the second question, they were asked to identify

one or two elements from the Revised Leadership Scale for Sport (RLSS; for athletes and

coaches; Appendix O), and comment as group. The third question was a marker for their

169
 170

development, a baseline to determine if they even considered personal development as an

outcome of their participation. Finally, the fourth question was also a marker of development,

indicating whether or not they could identify personal or group challenges (who in the group will

share) and if they can identify their own or group resources that have been helpful in the past.

All four teams managed only to discuss the first two questions in the time they were

given, with the majority of the conversation revolving around what they value most about their

coach and elements of the RLSS. In all the peer interviews, the experienced players took the lead

and asked the questions. In three out of the four groups, the leaders explicitly invited feedback

and participation of the rookies. In the fourth group, the leaders did most of the talking, which

was not entirely surprising because these players were the de facto, self-appointed captains of the

team in their last season.

What are your best hopes for the season? Without exception all the teams began with,

‘besides winning’ and then discussed improving their communication and sense of trust in each

other, coming together as a team and having each other’s backs, “something we didn’t have last

year.” Three of the four teams spoke specifically about making the rookies feel included and the

same three teams spoke about being able to tell each other when they made mistakes or messed

up. For example, a passage from the transcript of Group 2 included these insights:

P: Yeah…and like encourage people when they have messed up cause like (yeah like
“keep going”) Yeah
P: Everyone’s gonna make mistakes. That’s part of the game.
P: So, we have to know like it’s a safe environment to like make mistakes. (yeah) (yeah)
Cause you know no one is going to be so mad at you (yeah)
P: And even the opposite of that. If I make a mistake, I need to be accountable at the same
time. (exactly) (yeah)

What do you value most about your coaches? Three of the four groups immediately

mentioned and discussed wisdom and experience as what they most value about the coaches, HC

especially. Take, for example, this passage from a transcript,

170
 171

P: Aaaah, I value their use of wisdom, especially like Coach has like so much experience,
so just like everything that they say I value because obviously they see something that we
don’t when we’re playing (yeah, yeah)
P: yeah, I like their experience, cause like AC2, and definitely their knowledge
P: yeah, their wisdom

Then three of the four groups discussed how they felt valued and supported by the coaches not

just as athletes but as a whole person. One of the groups spoke of Coach as a surrogate mother,

P: And they’re just relatable (yeah)

P: Yeah like she is a coach during practice time but after practice time…. after, she’s like,
compassionate (yeah) (yeah). Like she’s approachable…. you aren’t scared to talk to her.
P: You could say she’s your mother (laughter)
P: She’s kinda like my second mother! She’s been my mother for the past 5 years…
laughs (laughter). It’s a true fact! It’s true.

All of the groups selected elements of democratic behaviour from the RLSS to discuss, with the

predominant discussion involving their desire or wish for coaches to include them in practice and

game designs and strategies. In fact, one of the groups spent the majority of the time discussing

this single item, with input and examples from all the group members. One group expressed it

this way,

P: Yeah and I wish they’d ask us like “do you guys feel like this drill?” or like “is this
drill like helpful?” or whatever (yeah) or like “what kind of drills do you want?” You
know like just ask for our input at some point.
P: Yeah like “what do guys think you want to work at this week?”
P: Yeah as a team, yeah
P: Cause like I know they know a lot but like there’s also like things they don’t see you
know? (yeah)
P: Yeah, I agree

Another group had this to say,

P: Yeah like I know they see it (yeah), watch games of like, other teams playing them, but
at the end of the day we’re playing with them and we know when somebody’s .... like
you’re not going to see someone pinching you or like (yeah) or somebody really hook
like, hooking your arm or something like that.
P: Yeah there’s those little things (little things that…) in the game that you’ll know more
than the coaches who are like on the bench…so. (yeah) (right) (mmmph)
P: But we need to be confident and sharp and communicating what we want to be
changed. Like we can’t just ask them to ask us what we want (yeah) and then we have
nothing really useful and efficient to say (mmph) or contribute.

171
 172

And a player from another group, with support from her teammates suggests,

P: Yes! Because we have played against the players and we kinda know…I’m not saying

we know more, I’m not saying that but we know certain things that they do (we have a

feel for it). Yeah, we have a feel for it, like certain players that we’ve played against for

the past like, 5 years, like we know their little things (yeah) and we can help with the

scouting reports (yeah). Cause like the scouting reports last year were crap…. we’d be

like “No! Like, gap this girl!” Like “what?” Like I don’t know… eh? (yeah)

It was somewhat surprising, that in all of the peer-interviews, the level of contribution

from the first year or rookie players was quite high. In fact, one group, in which the leaders

dominated the discussion, leaving the first-year players silent, spoke about the traditional role of

the rookie in the sport context:

P: Our seniors, our seniors would like literally talk down to the rooks, especially to me,

yeah. It wasn’t really that nice. So, like when I’m like talking to you guys, like especially

the rookies. Like when I’m talking to you guys it’s more like encouraging (yeah).

There was a noted and concerted effort to make the rookies feel valued and included, which had

been a stated goal of our retreat.

However, one of the most profound observations was the level of competing discourses.

While all of the groups discussed how much they valued HC’s approachability, to the extent that

some referred to her as a surrogate mother, apparently that didn’t apply in training or

competition. For example, when discussing democratic coach behaviour and whether or not they

could contribute meaningfully to practices and games, they all felt they could but then said,

“Okay….so we’re not going to tell them,” or “Cause like you take whatever the coach says and

you just do it. (yeah).” Their insight into details that could improve practices and games was

172
 173

impressive and reinforced for me that contrary to coaches’ beliefs, the athletes do have strong and

valuable opinions, voices; they have simply learned to silence them.

A number of the athletes also discussed democratic coach behaviour in terms of the

challenge they have balancing their sport and academic demands. One athlete expressed,

“It’s like when they say, ‘we’re doing this’, and you’re like Oh My God, I have three mid-terms

next week.” From there, the conversation turned to making mistakes and how they would prefer

to be encouraged when they make mistakes instead of berated – since they are entirely aware of

their mistakes in the first place.

P: I think it’s good (lots of laughter and giggle) – it was said as a question I like being
encouraged (yeah)
P: how many mistakes you get in your own head and then having people yell at you even
more (yeah, yup, yeah) it depends on the situation but I think you know you already made
the mistake so
P: yeah I think it depends on the person but me personally I’m hard enough on myself
(yeah, like yeah) before I’ve made a mistake I know I’ve made a mistake (yeah, yeah) and
I’m already beating myself up so if the coach is down on me to then it’s harder to get
back into it (yeah)
P: and for like mistakes too, some of those mistakes could be positive mistakes where it’s
like you see someone and then you just like time it too slow or too fast
P: and then if someone’s bashing in on you
P: but that’s like a good mistake
P: it feels like the right idea and next time you’ll have it (yeah, yeah)

I thought it was impressive that they could identify the concept of a good mistake but wondered

how the coaches would ever come to know about their discovery. The belief that it’s the coaches’

job to tell them what to do is extraordinarily strong (coach as expert theme) and one athlete

expressed it perfectly when she said, “It’s also for their best interest too (the coaches), that’s why

they’re telling them (the athletes). That’s why they’re coaches.”

The Athlete Interviews - The Athlete Perspective. As mentioned previously, there were

four athlete interviews conducted by AC over the course of the season. Each interview had a

different purpose and intention with regard to athlete development. The development of the

173
 174

interview process was deliberate and collaborative, again, as was described earlier. Here I present

the aims of each interview, followed by the findings.

The aim of the first interview was to help the athletes set concrete and manageable goals

for themselves and for the team. To do this, AC used predominantly scaling questions, which are

one of the fundamental SF question types. Scaling represents change (Palmer, 2011) and scaling

questions help to monitor progress, provide a subject measure, develop next steps, set goals and

refine conversations (Bannink & Jackson, 2011; Palmer, 2011; Trepper, McCollum, De Jong,

Korman, Gingerich, & Franklin, 2010). Other questions from the interview which can be found at

Appendix L, include a question that asks what type of support or assistance they will need to

accomplish their goals (a coping question), who will notice once their improvement (a

relationship question), what difference their improvement will make to the team (reflection and

amplification of strengths and resources) and finally a question about the usefulness of the

interview (summary understanding and confirms what they learned).

The second interview took place just over four weeks following the first interview. This

was to ensure the athletes were on track with the goals they had set for themselves. The questions

in the second interview that can be found in Appendix M were designed to help them reflect on

the goals they had set the previous month, while re-prioritizing if necessary. Significantly, this

interview began by asking what they were most proud of, which is an indirect compliment and

makes a positive assumption, that they were proud of something. This is a generative question

that elicits and amplifies strengths. Importantly, in this interview AC also introduced one of the

overall themes that the coaching staff was using, incremental improvement. The idea was that by

aiming to improve just 1% a day, their overall improvement in a month could be enormous. AC

used scaling to help them set these realistic goals. Interestingly, she used an actual scale

(Appendix M) and asked the athletes to mark on the scale where they were presently, and where

174
 175

they wanted to be in another four weeks. By asking the athletes to mark their numbers on a line

we hoped the visual tool would help them set more realistic goals. In addition, AC emphasized

daily and doing. What would they be doing on a daily in practice. By emphasizing the word

doing, we can help to translate their feelings into behaviours and by emphasizing daily, we

reinforce what it is they have control over and how it becomes habitual. Then she asked each

athlete what they were capable of doing consistently on a daily basis despite whatever challenges

they might have identified. In this way, we learn about and acknowledge the challenges they

perceive, but focus on what they are capable of doing and how they are coping. Finally, she asked

who would notice and what was one thing worth remembering.

The third interview was more for my research than something the Coaches wanted and for

that reason we developed the questions to reflect elements of the MAP (Appendix P). The first

question asked them to reflect about life challenges and how they are able to overcome them

(item 20 on the MAP). The second question, which began with a positive assumption about being

better asked them to consider how they handle criticism (item 21 on the MAP). The third

question asked them to think about how easy or difficult it was for them to express their opinions

within the context of the team (item 26 on the MAP). The remaining questions were similar to the

previous interviews, asking the athletes to consider what their challenges are, priority goals and

their takeaway.

Finally, the fourth and last interview asked questions around their perceptions of

improvement (Appendix Q). Did their ability to express their opinions and emotions improve

from the beginning of the season; did their confidence grow? We asked about how their sense of

self changed, and what their most valuable lesson was. We also asked what they perceived to be

the turning point in our season.

175
 176

From the first interview through to the last interview, all of the athletes were good at

selecting their primary goals. The scaling questions, however, were interesting. Although scaling

is subjective, two of the athletes in the first interview rated themselves much higher than the

coach would have rated them, while another two athletes rated themselves quite realistically, but

when asked where they would be on the scale in four weeks, all but one of the players rated

themselves unrealistically high. For example, one player placed herself at a 3 with regard to one

of the skills she identified to work on; in four weeks she estimated that she would be at a 9. Such

unrealistic improvements in such a short period of time, was not consistent with their overall self-

awareness.

Although the initial scaling question provoked these conundrums, in another interview

when the AC used an actual line on a piece of paper to help the athletes scale, all of the athletes

were able to use the line scaling to their advantage, with the help of the 1% theme. Here is an

excerpt from the scaling section of one of the interviews.

P: Well when we last met I think I saw myself around here [putting a mark on the scaling
line (okay)] but I think I’m going to say that I’ve actually improved, maybe some of my
offensive moves haven’t improved, but my calmness (perfect, kay) has improved (So
you’ve got some baby steps, you’ve got your baby steps in there that’s excellent). I’m
more comfortable on offense in the month I’ve been here (Okay).
AC: To get from here to here, what do you need to do, what actions do you need to do, so
you will get to where you want to be on a daily basis? It will be consistent….
P: I think it’s a mixture of reps, challenging myself with a lot of pressure and focusing on
the little things as an offensive player, staying locked in.

Asking the question in this way, enables the athlete to break down into manageable steps what

she can do on a daily basis to accomplish small but significant goals and objectives. Remarkably,

the athlete who in the previous interview suggested she would move from a 3 to 10 in four weeks

was able to readjust her goal setting and it became much more realistic with the help of the line

scale and the special emphasis on daily and 1%. Here is an excerpt from her transcript.

176
 177

AC: Ok so you’ve got your skill. You said you see yourself as a 3. Of course you want to
be Olympic level 10 (chuckles). Even the Olympic athletes aren’t there (yeah) but that’s
okay (yeah). So what are you going to do, what’s that movement, what’s the baby steps?
That 1%?
P: Umm I think confidence to be honest like just thinking of a skill like not that serious
but it’s like.... I don’t want to think about like “I’m on the offense and I’m going to miss
again, miss again” It shouldn’t be like that right? So I think that just comes down to like
knowing I can make shot easily and having the confidence to do that.
AC: If you were coaching somebody for this skill, what would you tell them?
P: Relax, breathe, take your time.
AC: And how do people relax?
P: By breathing out, getting all the air out umm maybe rituals that they have would work,
but then taking a breath before your skill.

Note how AC never gives any instructions to the athlete on how she might improve this skill, she

simply asks questions that help the athlete discover the answers themselves. This is a textbook

example of SF leading from behind.

All of the players were also able to provide detailed descriptions of what they would find

challenging and what type of support would be helpful. Interestingly, two of the players indicated

that they wanted tough love from the coaches in order to improve, and that they could ‘handle’

the coach yelling at them. One player indicated that all of her past coaches had been yellers. All

of the players said that they themselves would notice their improvements, then their teammates

and the coaches. All of the players were able to summarize what was important to them and

mentioned that vocalizing their goals and next steps out loud was helpful.

The depth of personal insight and self -awareness was certainly evident by the third

interview. Here is one athlete’s response to the first question (Sometimes life gives us challenges

that set us back from our hopes and dreams. How do you handle these challenges?).

Acknowledge the problem. Sometimes there’s a fear that comes in and I wanted to say

this in the change room, but I didn’t get a chance…. You know when someone tells you

to face your fear and you take that step to face it…then you do it do once and you're like

and ok, that was kind of scary… I felt weird about it and then after you kind of want to do

177
 178

it but you won’t do it yourself unless you’re pushed to do it. You can't let that

uncomfortable feeling stop you. You find it in you somehow to keep pushing yourself and

keep going. That's what I do…. I feel that I've changed since 1st year. There's no time to

be scared and worrying …it’s just a waste of time. There's like no time for it ... you just

have to the keep going and believe in yourself and know that you can do it and have the

confidence to do it. I think of not throwing a pity party… There’s no use in saying woe is

me…. I just have a feeling in me that tells me that like there's no use in not doing it… so

you might as well do it… just go for it.

Here is another player’s response to the same question.

I think those challenges are expected… you can't predict the challenge but it's expected.

You set your dream to something that you really want … it's probably something that's

hard to get … I take them and I channel my frustration… I definitely get mad when things

don't go my way. I channel frustration towards being better, because, … at the end of the

day, if it's not going my way, it's probably something I can change.

When asked about how they handle criticism one of the players had the following response.

To overcome criticism, you can't get into your head about it and be mad about what the

person is saying … because they're only saying it to benefit you … it’s just if you are

willing to change. When my teammates or coach tell me to do something, it's for the

benefit of you and the team. So, you can't really dwell on it…. can't really get mad.

There's always that next play, because the game doesn't wait for you. If you are going to

dwell on it, then ... there is a sub coming. So, you can think about it for a short moment …

on the bench and have to think about it and get back in the game… because you're going

to be going back out there in 2-3 minutes. You can't wait…worrying about a criticism, ….

you can't wait, for the game moves forward.

178
 179

Another player had this response to how she handles criticism.

I like criticism. I think if it gives me insight…. I like hearing about myself … not in a

selfish way… good or bad … whatever feedback I'm getting helps me to build on my

present performance… I personally like constructive criticism. I don't think it diminishes

me in anyway… it's helpful… it's for my own good … I like it.

When asked about their comfort and ability to express their opinions, a third-year player had the

following response.

It's not hard because when I think about how I'm playing and what I'm bringing to the

team and how I can help by just doing my part …it's not hard to give that helpful

criticism. For other people that are not playing as well, it's harder to give an opinion and

it's like you're being hypocritical. So, for me it's not really hard because I do make

mistakes obviously but I do feel that when I was playing that I was bringing what I can.

While a first-year player had this to say.

As the season has gone forward, I am a lot more comfortable. For the most part, I can

express my opinion. I think it depends on the situation. For example, [athlete] is a very

hard worker…if she doesn’t go for a loose puck, I’m not going to point that out to

her…and I’m not going to criticize her…I don’t feel that I have the right because she is

such a hard worker…. I’m not going to do that…I don’t feel comfortable doing that. For

the most part, I think that I can express my opinion.

Finally, all of the players identified the same turning point, which was the beginning of

their six-game win streak but what was particularly thought-provoking was the independent

reasoning for the turning point. The senior player attributed the turning point to the AAR process,

which she believed activated players. Another player attributed that turning point to trust.

179
 180

I don’t know like, we just like kind of trusted each other, and shared the puck and like let

things happen naturally. We didn’t try to do too much. You know, everyone understood

their role. Everyone was on the same page, that was the most important thing I think…

that everyone was on the same page and like it showed in games.

When SFC are undergoing supervision and reviewing audio or video taped session with

their supervisors, they are asked to identify the turning point in the conversation. This is the point

at which the conversation shifts, from the client’s perspective, to solution building. Being able to

identify what worked is important because it demonstrates our understanding of the process and

being able to identify what contributes positively to that process. This is a skill we hoped the

athletes would develop through our collaboration

The After Action Review and The Turning Point. I describe the AAR process in detail

on page 160. It is a recurring process that uses four questions intended to help participants review

and assess learning and performance to inform future actions (Baird, Holland, & Deacon, 1999;

Cronin & Andrews, 2009). Significantly, the AAR helps to facilitate a greater sense of self-

awareness and collaboration (Cronin & Andrews, 2009). In the previous section, my description

of the AAR was with respect to AC, while here it is about the athletes and how it contributed to

their personal development. In particular, I focus on two AARs that were significant as they

contributed to the turning point for the team.

The first AAR took place at the beginning of January. The team had been in a serious

slump for some time and everyone was feeling discouraged. It was my hope that the AAR could

help the athletes start thinking about the game differently. They could start to learn what they

were learning from each game and figure out, specifically, how to take that learning forward into

future games. I also felt it could enhance collaboration, communication and resiliency. This AAR

180
 181

took place following sixteen and half minutes of HC telling them what they didn’t do. It wasn’t

hopeful. Even so, here is an excerpt from the AAR, that reveals their understanding and sincerity.

AC: What’s the difference between what was supposed to happen and what actually
happened?
P: Oh, we just weren’t focused enough for the full game
P: Focus and discipline
P: I think focusing on doing what each individual, like playing to our strengths, some
people are trying to do too much and it obviously didn’t work out, so we have to help
each other, help each other play to our strengths because everybody is good at something
and collectively that’s gonna help us win
P: We all try to do everything at once
P: We need to play to our strengths, but playing to your own strengths, can be different
than playing to the team’s strengths.
AC: Anything else?
Long pause
AC: So, what are we going to do moving forward?
P: So, it means fight harder, so it really means like we want to win
AC: Anything else?
P: We just need to play like we know we can. We need to have confidence in ourselves
and confidence in our team and then eventually, it will start to change, affect change. If
we just have confidence in ourselves, like as individuals and as a team
P: I think we need to look deep, like each individual person needs to look deep into
themselves and figure out what gets them going, what is the thing that’s going to help
them bring up their energy, bring up their effort, bring up their compete level, because it’s
not the same for everyone, so once we figure out what works for us, we have to keep
playing for that.

Immediately following this AAR, the athletes continued their discussion, without any input from

coaches or staff. It was a tough, courageous conversation. They called each other out.

P: we have a habit of getting in our heads because nobody wants to talk to each other and
have outside conversations. That’s why we have them in our head. That’s why I have
them in my head. Pause. I just wanted to come out and have fun. We gotta do that
tomorrow. I haven’t lost faith in you guys. [Athlete] had to tell me to do the work hungry.
Cause I’m, you know, I’m a little bit hesitant, I’m wondering who’s actually hungry. I
don’t like saying things just for the sake of it. I don’t say things every meeting. I don’t say
things every huddle. I say them when they need to be said. And right now this needs to be
said.
P: what time is it?
P: it’s 8:00 we have from 8:00 to bedtime, for everybody to talk to everybody on this
team and say what they could have done. Not what they did. What they should have done
or could do
P: Don’t be nice guys. We all know we love each other and we’re a team whatever, but
like, this is going to make us better.

181
 182

P: We don’t need to sugar coat things anymore

P: Yeah, don’t take it personal. Any criticism is going to make your game better. Like it’s
dumb taking things personally. Cause it’s like between this happening for another half of
our season, or like making a change. Cause we all know this feels like shit, no one wants
to keep talking about this.

A couple of weeks later their ability to identify what they could be doing to improve was even

more evident. They were making links between game play and practices. They also continued to

challenge each other.

P: It seemed like she was bugging our offense a lot too

P: So like in practice, maybe we need to get up on you guys more so you get a little
pressure better? But it looked like she kinda got in your heads
P: For sure we definitely need more of that in practice cause I was flustered when I was
on her.
P: I feel like the reason we got so many penalties was because, like, because most of them
weren’t penalties on like the screens and stuff, but we need to show that they’re not uhm
penalties. Cause she was going off and like flopping and she made it look like there was a
penalty but we need to learn how to make sure, like be obvious that it’s not a penalty.
P: on the other hand you guys do make a lot of penalties in practice, so like stupid
penalties, so like you do that all week, you’re gonna do it in the game like, we need to do
better in practice, getting in front of our person, instead of relying on penalties to not let
them score (yeah)
P: I feel like, because they were being so tenacious and aggressive, they kinda got into our
heads a little bit and that’s when we started getting penalties, and getting angry or
something and that kinda flustered us I feel like
P: One thing I need to learn is that urgency isn’t a point, it’s not something you learn, it’s
something you feel (P: yeah!) I don’t think enough of us feel it as an emotion, where its’
‘how do I show urgency, what’s the play?’ (mocking voice)
P: until we do that it’s not going to change
AC: anything else, so what can we learn from this moving forward?
P: like they said uhm just like, we need like to be able to find that sense of urgency within
ourselves, it just has to come out, so yeah.
AC: last time, so anything else?
P: I think we also need to take pride in our accomplishments, like take pride in getting
that one steal if that’s what you get, or take pride in getting that one stop and just like
build from there, cause like really make it something, something that you’re proud of…

It was nice to see how they could also compliment themselves and their effort. They were

learning to support each other in challenging situations, without simply reproducing the

negativity of coaching staff.

182
 183

At the end of January, with less than a month of AAR practice, there was a turning point.
One of the senior, starting players, thanked a first year player for calling her out on something she
did during the game. It started a cascade and another player then thanked a senior player for
calling out the bench about their lack of enthusiasm during the game. They broke all the rules and
the culture was turned upside down. This led to more courageous conversations with HC during
the post-game review. For example, in this excerpt a number of players have the courage to
suggest the team did some things well, despite their loss – this absolutely would not have
happened a few months earlier. What is especially encouraging is that HC supported their
contributions.
HC: K, [Athlete A] (P)
Athlete A: Over the year, I really like where we’re at with the talking it’s definitely
better. I just wish that everybody felt, the like, the rush to look at the clock, and let’s not
wait, uh, God I hate that so much (getting excited) like, I just want to play strong
offensively already
HC: So, let’s get that going in the next game. Okay?
Athlete A: you think that’s a …sometimes you can carve cause your man is high up
there. Forget about her, help with the defense cause they’re the ones that …back at all.
Cause it’ll be a trap and it’s done.
HC: that’s great. Great comments. And that’s something you can do out there. We are not
going to get mad at you. Right
HC: Athlete B
Athlete B: I was pretty proud that we held on, like even when it was like, like we were
down pretty bad, we just kept on pushing, so like we never just let go, we just like kept
fighting the entire game. Like I think they’re a top ranked team nationally so like, the fact
that we competed with them, like the whole time, like I think, that we should be proud of
that. Next time we face them it’s going to be a different story.
HC: good point. Athlete C how did you feel about the game?
Athlete C: Ahh, I felt that defensively we had support. Like much more than we had
yesterday. So, like we were able to pick off some passes like uhm. So, we were there for
each other. It wasn’t very consistent, but it was a lot more than yesterday. But ah, in terms
sharing the effort, I feel like we still need to work on that.

From the beginning it was encouraging to note how precise the players were with their

ability to define the steps required to move them up the scale on each of their skill goals. This

indicates good self-awareness, as well as good goal setting and planning. They were able to

identify what kind of support would be helpful which reflects their awareness of resources,

strengths and weaknesses. Some answers also highlighted their desire to please the coaches, be

183
 184

perceived as tough and their explicit endorsement of tough coaching. For example, all of the

players described liking criticism although some of them did qualify it by adding, constructive.

They all also made remarks about not taking it personally.

My critical friend and I also noted that each athlete was able to clearly articulate what she

was most proud of over the course of the season - even when this may not have been something

endorsed by the coaches. We felt their answers were a realistic and fair assessment of what they

should have been proud of which is an indication of good self-reflective and self-assessment

skills. For example, one athlete expressed,

Umm my persistence I think. Well as an individual, on an individual level. [And] I think

we’re really coming together as a collective group which is really good like you can see

cohesion starting to build (yeah yeah) so that’s good.

By using the scaling with special emphases (the 1% theme for example), the athletes were

able to devise their own ways of coping and enhance their own development. Remarkably, the

athlete who, in the previous interview suggested she would move from a 3 to 10 in four weeks,

was able to readjust her goal setting and it became much more realistic with the help of the line

scale. She was also, with the help of good questions, able to discover her own solutions to

improving that particular skill. Athletes are learning to direct their own growth by discovering

their own answers. AC, HC and I all felt this was evidence of personal growth. At the same time,

the coaches learn the athletes’ perception of where they believe their strengths and weaknesses to

be, and how discrepant these may be from their coaching perspective. At this point, the coaches

can support the athlete in ways that are more useful and effective.

It was reassuring to learn how each of the players felt comfortable and confident

expressing their opinions, even the first-year players, which was consistent with our cultural

goals. But, I was particularly encouraged by their personal understanding and mindfulness about

184
 185

overcoming challenges. The players spoke about challenges being unpredictable but being able to

channel their frustration into positive change. By asking these types of questions, the strengths

and resources of the individual are elicited and amplified.

Similarly, when asked about their sense of self and if it had changed, each of the athletes

felt her confidence had grown since the beginning of the season and for different reasons.

Interestingly, some players equated a change in their sense of self to how their confidence had

grown, while the first-year player felt her sense of had not changed because it was firmly

grounded in personal values – which had not changed.

I don’t think it’s changed that much throughout this season. uhm I had strong values

coming in. I think that I understand better how I can bring those values to the team and

contribute more….uhm and I have stronger goals on what I want to work on coming out

of the season. But I don’t think I don’t think like I’ve…. I think my morals and my….

What I value has stayed the same. Yeah.

The uniqueness of answers to the fourth interview were initially disturbing for me. I

couldn’t find any common themes and as the researcher in me began to panic, my critical friend -

who had the same problem - wisely pointed out that it was evidence of success. The players, were

able to differentiate themselves, expressing their autonomy and independence which are

attributes said to be enhanced by our humanistic model and self-actualization (Compton, 2001;

Visser, 2012).

These findings and observations make the transformation of team culture and personal

development apparent. Although the players identified the turning point in the season, to be the

game where they had their first big win – and when the starting player thanked a first-year player

for calling her out – My critical friend and I both thought the turning point was the

implementation of the AAR process. It facilitated their learning and transformed the manner in

185
 186

which they began to communicate with each other (it became more adult), and gave them

courage.

As one of the players from the above transcript remarked, “I really like where we’re at

with the talking it’s definitely better.” Although the team may not have started winning games as

soon as the AAR was implemented, it further facilitated their growth and development –

eventually that translated into better performance and winning games. It is, of course, important

to note that HC’s learning and implementation of the SF principles coincided with the work the

athletes were doing. The timing was perfect.

Conclusions

In summary, the constant comparative data analysis revealed a number of interesting

findings. Firstly, that athletes, similar to coaches, were challenged by competing discourses.

Secondly, that the intervention positively influenced the athletes’ self-actualizing processes by

helping them to break down prescriptive hierarchies, differentiate themselves from the coaches’

limited perception of their performance and even assert their own perspective, express themselves

more confidently to each other and to the coaches, and support each other. Finally, improved

individual and collective performances. Again, it also became evident that the After Action

Review was a meaningful tool that helped to facilitate this process.

Research Question Three: Team Culture Change

Does the intervention appear to change team culture, and if so, in what ways?

Through the learning process associated with the findings associated with research

questions one and two, valuable insights and understanding of how team culture was changed,

were illuminated through many collaborative conversations with both CFs, as well as the HC

herself. Using practice and theory associated with humanistic psychology, cultural psychology

186
 187

and SFC, as well as the results from the previous analyses, we were able to determine that team

culture had positively changed. In the following section I provide a discussion about these

theoretical and practical understandings, that seem to indicate a positive reciprocal influence

between coach communication, athlete self-actualization and team culture.

It became evident early in the data analysis, that self-actualization is much bigger than the

simple definition of “a desire for self-fulfillment” (Maslow, 1943). It is a self-awareness that

opens them to experience (Rogers, 1959), it is courage, risk-taking, commitment (Maslow, 1962),

autonomy (Ivtzan et al., 2013), a self-concept (Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007), perhaps

most significantly (at least to me) it is the ability to self-reference and transcend the prescription

of cultural forces, grounded in one’s own sense of being (Venter, 2016).

Palmer (2009) suggests that it is the purpose of higher education to create free people

through the teaching of critical thinking and explorative inquiry. He goes on to explain that we

are obligated to help students examine their ‘inner drivers’ (pg.4). In many ways, these inner

drivers are a profound way of understanding self-actualization, since it involves helping students

to become aware of their differentiated identity, an unbiased commitment to understanding their

choices, beliefs and values. Interestingly, Palmer also suggests that students have learned that

questioning meaning and value can be dangerous topics for them to raise, which supports our

assertions associated with the master narratives/themes presented earlier, especially those

associated with the coach as expert theme and the great sport myth theme. Athletes have learned

that it is dangerous for them to challenge those powerful discourses (Avner, 2014).

For example, almost all of the players, at some point, described liking criticism - although

some of them did qualify it by adding, constructive. With one first year player going so far as to

say that she liked it when HC yelled at her, that all of her coaches in the past had been yellers.

This brought up the concept of competing discourses once again, since at the beginning of the

187
 188

season during peer interviews, the athletes expressed that they didn’t appreciate the coach

reinforcing their mistakes. This latter perspective is supported by a study that explored how

athletes perceived their coach’s communication following a loss or mistakes (Sagar & Jowett,

2012). The survey results of 324 athletes across a wide variety of sports suggests that the

negative communication behaviours of coaches, which included: yelling, humiliations, threats,

criticism and blaming; had negative and detrimental consequences for the athletes. They didn’t

like the coach’s behaviour or find it helpful. In fact, the study also asked the athletes to make

recommendations for their coach’s communication behaviour. Some recommendations included:

encouraging the coach to be more encouraging, supportive, reassuring, and to praise and

appreciate the athlete’s efforts. Therefore, in our study, the conflict between what the athletes

said amongst themselves, (when they were told that the coaches would not have access to their

recordings) and what they said during their individual interviews, (when they were aware the HC

did have access to their recordings) highlights the conflict between their inner workings and these

master narratives.

Similar to Palmer (2007), Kimmerer (2013) suggests that “the work of living is creating a

map for yourself” (pg. 7); which is, again, a wonderful metaphor for self-actualization and the

discovery of our inner workings. Sigman (2016), how believes that words can predict our mental

health, might describe our inner workings as our ability to think about our own thoughts and to be

introspective, and he asserts that introspection (self-actualization) leads to social transformation

and cultural change. However, Kimmerer also states that “we are all products of our world

views” (pg. 163), which again helps to explain perhaps how athletes’ are conditioned into their

ways of being. Their world view is largely animated by the great sport myth (Coakley, 2015) and

subsequently influenced by the other master narratives, which reinforces their docility and

compliance (Johns & Johns, 2000). Yet Kimmerer also states that “all flourishing is mutual”

188
 189

(pg.21) and this concept helps to explain the positive reciprocal improvements that occurred

between the coach communication skills, athlete self-actualization and team culture.

Significantly, researchers posit that coach communication styles that positively influence

affective learning, also promote cognitive learning, which subsequently, may increase individual

and team success (Turman & Schrodt, 2004). Affective learning positively emphasizes emotions

through positively influencing motivation, goal setting and self-concept (Delcourt et al., 2007).

Although solution-focused coaching does not directly accentuate emotions, practitioners are

constantly amplifying and reinforcing positive emotions through cognition and behaviour (Kiser,

Piercy, & Lipchik, 1993). Kiser and colleagues state that emotions, cognitions and behaviours are

complimentary and interrelated, and that emotions are often a product of repeated interactions

between individuals and their environment. Ultimately our aim was to positively amplify the

athletes’ self-actualization, which conceptually is related to their self-concept, their self-

perception, their thinking and their behaviour - all of which we have established in strongly

influenced by language (discourse) and culture (Bruner, 1990, 2008). Specifically we

accomplished this through the athlete interviews, where AC asked the athletes questions that had

them reflect on their successes, exceptions to their problems, scaling questions and relationship

questions. All of these question types provoke a more positive affective state and aim to reframe

negative situations or contexts that may be associated with negative feelings (Kiser et al., 1993).

As a result, as Turman and Schrodt (2004) suggested, over the course of the season, as the

athletes’ self-actualizing processes were enhanced, their individual development and team

performance improved. This was evidenced through the breakdown of prescriptive team

hierarchies, enhanced personal and collective accountability initiated by the athletes themselves,

improved individual and collective performances, more cohesiveness and consistency as well as

189
 190

more acknowledgement and support (compliments). Examples for each of these elements are

presented in the Findings section under research question two.

Boroditsky (2018) studies how language shapes the way we think. She posits that

language orients and provides direction. She also suggests that culturally, language shapes what

we pay attention to, and it guides our reasoning about events. Similarly, other researchers have

also made the connection between communication and behavioural change, asserting that when

we modify language we influence change (Strate, 2003). In fact, Strate suggests a direct

relationship between communication and the sense of self, suggesting that our sense of self is

intimately connected to how we differentiate ourselves from the other. These concepts form the

basis of solution-focused theory, the belief that language can shape what we pay attention to and

how we think about events in our lives (Hoyt, 2001), and by using language to help clients

(athletes and coaches) to think about and focus on strengths and resources, their sense of self,

competence, confidence, autonomy and wellbeing are enhanced (Grant & Connor, 2010; Green et

al., 2006.) - and as we have shown through this study, performance and culture and are also

amplified.

Unforeseen Discovery

I could not have predicted how the SF coaching model was transformed by the AR

process. Through practice, we modified the SF coaching model to the extent that we created a

new model I would call synergistic communication or synergistic coaching. Serendipitously, we

established a hybrid that uses the language and principles of SF communication within a

framework that is a combination of Grant’s SF taxonomy (2011) and the cyclical pattern of AR.

This new framework involves goal orientation, resource activation, problem disengagement,

action, observation, reflection. As such, synergistic coaching implies a cooperative or

collaborative action between coach and athlete(s) that, as a result of their cooperation or

190
 191

collaboration, produces outcomes greater than the sum of their individual contributions or

abilities, in addition to having a generative purpose. Synergistic coaching evolved over the course

of the year, primarily as a result of the weekly meeting I had with HC. Every week we reflected

on the previous week’s practices and games, looking for strengths, resources, what HC wanted to

be doing more of and we devised a plan with specific next steps and discussed the resources

needed for those next steps. The plan was enacted (not always) and the process began again the

following week. As my relationship with HC grew, and she began to see results, her motivation

to engage with the process increased, there was a true synchronicity that spilled over to the

athletes and team.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the analysis for this research question involved reviewing the findings from

research questions one and two with a humanistic and cultural psychology lens. The findings

associated with the first two research questions, helped to answer the third. Analyses of the data

from the coaches, athletes, critical friend and me, suggested that team culture significantly

improved over the course of the season. There was better (more mature) communication between

athletes and coaches, more trust between athletes, more collaboration and peer support, greater

accountability of teammates, and better conflict resolution. Finally, it became apparent that we

had inadvertently created a hybrid model of coaching that combined the principles associated

with the SF taxonomy of goal orientation, resource activation and problem disengagement, with

the functionality and cyclical processes associated with action research (planning, acting,

observing, reflecting).

191
 192

Discussion and Implications

The findings indicate that the SF intervention did positively influence coach behaviour

and communication as well as disrupt dominant discourses. Athletes’ self-actualizing processes

were enhanced and team culture was positively affected. These processes and their implications

are presented in this section.

Researchers assert that coach development programs are considered fundamental within

sport organizations as an approach to changing coach behaviour (Lefebvre, Evans, Turnnidge,

Gainforth, & Côté, 2016) and the majority of these programs focus on technical skills while those

that focus on intrapersonal skills (the coach’s ability to learn from their own practice) and

reflection are rare (Evans, McGuckin, Gainforth, Bruner, & Côté, 2015). Researchers also

suggest that coach development programs seldom investigate applied programs such as the one in

this study (Lefebvre et al., 2016) and there is scant understanding about the theories and

techniques used to design and implement these programs, or understand the behavioural change

behind them (Allan, Vierimaa, Gainforth, & Côté, 2017). Significantly, researchers also point out

that it is essential that coach education programs teach strategies that enhance coach’s abilities to

reflect and learn from their own experiences (Callary, Culver, Werthner, & Bales, 2014) in order

to improve the coaching process which is the coach’s ability to positively influence the learning

and development of their athletes (Hodgson, Butt, & Maynard, 2017).

It became evident early on that this was going to be a learning process (Kolb, 1984).

Certainly Figure 1 illustrates that learning was uneven. There was a gap between the knowing

and application. It was not simply a matter of providing a number of seminars or workshops, or

even retreats to teach SF communication skills. Operationalizing the learning, especially when

the situation and context were high stakes, was extremely difficult. Operationalization required

192
 193

continuous support and the on-going experiential learning that Kolb calls the grasping and

transformation of experience into knowledge (2005). Disrupting HC’s well-established patterns

of behaviour with new learning and new meaning meant helping her resolve the competing

discourses. Once she was able to resolve the competing discourses - something Kolb (1981)

indicated is necessary for learning to take place - and experience success, through the positive

outcomes associated with her new behaviour, there was a change. Significantly, this occurred at a

pace that was unique to HC, something the rest of us, including myself, could not control.

Our current coaching model uses an expert driven approach, with the coach as expert and

the players as grateful receivers of that expertise. Such a model drives our coach as expert master

narrative, one of the most challenging narratives to change from both an athlete and coach

perspective, as we noted in our findings. Yet, once HC began to lead with the questions instead of

directives, or even derisive comments, the athletes engaged more and team culture was enhanced.

As mentioned earlier, we need to move coaches out of auto-pilot (Kolb & Yeganah, 2011)

- a term that corresponds nicely with unvolitional behaviour - and into focused reflection. Yet we

know from previous research that reflection is a notoriously difficult skill to teach coaches

(Cushion et al., 2010) despite it being considered an essential skill (Dixon, Lee, & Ghaye, 2013;

Trudel et al., 2010). Fortunately, SFC is naturally reflective (Grant, Hodge, Peterson, &

Petlichkoff, 2012) and as such, the coach is inherently learning reflection skills as they learn SF

language and principles.

There were three major influences that contributed to HC’s success and can address the

last statement in the previous paragraph: (i) our collaborative AR framework, (ii) the SF

intervention itself, and (iii) the philosophical and theoretical cohesiveness or seamlessness of the

two. Our theory and practice were one, as they complemented each other. In fact, their

congruence is how I opened my introduction to this thesis. Both AR and SFP arise from

193
 194

humanistic philosophies and systems theories (Greenwood, 2015; Fish, 2014; Lewis & Osborne,

2004), as both insist that individuals or communities, or organizations, or teams are the experts of

their own experience and we have to assume that they have the resources and capabilities to

develop and shape their own solutions. Both cultivate reflection and practical, useful knowledge

that increases understanding and leads to positive change (Bradbury 2015; Fish, 2011b; Grant &

Connor, 2010).

Action Research asserts that the effects of established practices should be understood

personally and collectively (Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon, 2015). This was something that HC

and I (and sometimes AC) reviewed every week in our coffee chats. Our conversations revolved

around a review of the previous week from all our stakeholders’ perspectives: HC, coaching staff,

mine, and what we perceived to be the athletes’; then, we planned for the upcoming week and

perhaps most importantly, we discussed what all of us could be doing differently. In the SF

model, this process exemplifies Grant’s (2011) taxonomy of goal orientation, resource activation

and problem disengagement. Our weekly checking-in functioned as our goal orientation, while

asking what we could be doing differently activated our resources and helped us to actively

disengage from the problem and to focus instead on solutions. Similarly, in the AR model this

process is a micro version of the cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting that we are

implementing at a project level throughout the season. Finally, both action research and solution-

focused practice are collaborative. Within the SF model goals and strategies are co-constructed

and there is a lead-from-behind approach. This was a fundamental element of our success

because it meant that my role was never to change HC – implying some shortcoming or

inadequacy on her part – but we were learning together what worked.

With regard to the SFC coaching model, as mentioned in the introduction, a coaching

model supports what sport coaches already profess to do - facilitate the development and success

194
 195

of their athletes (Nash, Sproule, & Horton, 2008). The coaching model in particular is considered

to be a solution focused, results-oriented, systemic process whereby the coach works to enhance

the performance, the self-directed learning and personal growth of the coachee (Grant, 2007). Of

note here is the self-directed learning or intrapersonal skills, an element that researchers

referenced above deem as rare in coach development programs. In addition, the coaching model

is also conceived of as a model of reflective practice (Hök, 2011), another component of coach

development considered to be difficult to teach, yet essential to coach development (Cushion et

al., 2010; Dixon, Lee, & Ghaye, 2013; Trudel et al., 2010). The SF framework adds another

dimension to the coaching model by helping to develop a language and attitude that is

motivating, empowering and supports goal development and strategies (O’Connell & Palmer,

2007). Notably, SF conversations emphasize competence, skills, respect and hope (O’Connell &

Palmer, 2007).

In particular, the specific SF language skills (types of questions to ask and stances to

assume) were helpful for HC. Although she mentioned being overwhelmed in the beginning by

the amount of work she foresaw with this type of change, she also indicated that it became

second nature and by the end of the season she stated that it would be useful to both the coaching

world and the world in general. She also experienced, as mentioned earlier, the change in team

culture that resulted from our use of SF language and communication and she noticed how it

taught the players how to reflect. But perhaps most importantly, she was able to reconcile what it

meant for her to be able to ‘coach hard’ and use SF language – that was our turning point.

Coaching hard was no longer about being negative, it was about goal setting, goal striving,

finding the strengths and resources of the athletes. I hypothesize that this learning facilitated the

following changes emphasized in Maslow’s notion of a healthy personality; HC became

independent from the prescription of sport’s cultural forces because she was able to grasp and

195
 196

transform her experience (Kolb, 2005) by resolving the competing discourses (Kolb, 1981). In

addition, her Way of Being expanded as her confidence and competence with the SF model grew,

providing new meaning and value which in turn enhanced the culture and facilitated behavioural

change (Paufler & Amerien-Beardsley, 2015).

The learning process for the coaches might be evidenced in the following manner. We

learned at the end of the season during the coach retreat, that when the learning sessions began,

HC was overwhelmed. She realized that, “we had so much work to do.” We hadn’t even begun

the operationalization; we were only learning about the language and the principles and yet she

understood the scope of what we were trying to accomplish. Changing the language and nature of

her conversations with the athletes to a more adult-to-adult style (Showkeir & ShowKeir, 2008)

of communication was simpler in pre-season without the added pressure of competition. HC was

able to shift from a directive style (parent-child) to a questioning style (adult-adult) at the

beginning of the season and she gave positive, clear and generative feedback during practices

(compliments). While HC’s language and nature of communication may have slipped once

competition began, due to competing discourses that challenged her way of being, AC and I were

able to maintain our language and implement best practices that continued to support the

fundamental principles and adult-adult conversations with the athletes. As we are aware, by the

end of the season, HC felt like the language became “second nature.” Certainly, this can be seen

in the difference between the transcripts that were highlighted to illustrate her SFC skills. In the

first transcript her language was predominantly parent-child. She asked rhetorical questions, was

directive, scolding and sometimes sarcastic; while in the second transcript she asked sincere,

adult-adult relationship building questions, she had an authentic perspective of curiosity, she

provided compliments, elicited participation and gave them credit for accomplishing their goals –

despite that both transcripts represented losing games. Once HC was able to reconcile the

196
 197

meaning behind certain coaching truths (that were initially competing discourses) such as

‘coaching hard’ with the principles and language of SFC, she was able to transcend these

discourses and witness the cause and effect that SF language was having on the team. She saw

and was able to acknowledge the growth in the athletes, the individual and collective

performance, and the culture of team which had transformed from apathetic and discouraged to

engaged, hopeful, and committed. As a result, HC was able to align her coaching philosophy and

her behaviour. This congruency itself contributes to a more holistic way of being that promotes

wellbeing and optimal functioning.

Our project also indicates that experiential learning is a critical component of coach

development and learning, which is a belief supported in previous literature. For example, it has

been suggested that Kolb’s principles of experiential learning may enhance the effectiveness of

current coach education programs by addressing their current deficiencies (Stirling, 2013).

Similarly, researchers recommend that the principles of experiential learning and reflective

practice are elements that should be emphasized within coaching development programmes

(Irwin, Hanton, & Kerwin, 2004), in particular because it may influence a coach’s self-concept,

perceptions and expectations, while promoting a holistic approach to coach learning.

Significantly, Kaye (2002) accentuates the important role of language in experiential learning.

Earlier in the paper I describe Kolb’s (2005) model of experiential learning as “the

process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge

results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience” (p.2). According to

Kolb’s process, learning takes place in a four-stage model that includes concrete experience,

abstract conceptualization, reflective observation and active experimentation. This model was

reinforced for HC and AC in a number of ways over the course of our project, explicitly and

implicitly.

197
 198

Explicitly, the Kolb model was emphasized in our weekly coffee chats where we

examined a concrete experience (for example our AAR implementation), discussed how we

would conceptualize it in practice (abstract conceptualization), reflect on what worked (reflective

observation) and actively experimented with our revisions (active experimentation). These

weekly discussions, aside from also being a form of support mentioned above, reinforced an

explicit commitment from HC and AC to learning – and this is considered an essential element of

experiential learning (Cushion et al. 2010; Moon, 2004). Implicitly, the experiential learning

model is supported by the AR framework which is a more global experiential learning process

that also involves planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Tripp, 2005).

There are four valuable findings that were identified as a result of the discourse analysis,

that provide answers as to whether or not SF skills interrupted the dominant coaching discourses

prevalent in sport – in response to part (b) of research 1 (the previous section presents the how).

These findings have the power to fundamentally influence our understanding of coach education

and development, as well as, help to explain the challenges of coach education and development.

These developments include, the sport discourse themes (the hard work theme, tough coach

theme, great sport myth theme, coach as expert theme and good players want this theme) the way

of being, competing discourses and un-volitional blindness. Each of these features strongly

affected and influenced not only our coach’s behaviour, but I would assert, they influence coach

behaviour in general.

Although there is a large body of literature regarding the dominant, harmful discourses

prevalent in sport today, much of it is presented from a feminist, race or sociological perspective.

There appears to be a gap in the literature with respect to discourse and psychology, and an even

greater gap when considering how specific discourse themes may influence/impact behaviour and

culture from a humanistic perspective. Although one aim of this study was to investigate how

198
 199

SFC might disrupt the dominant sport/coaching discourses, the emergence of these discourse

themes, as a result, is an area of research that warrants further investigation.

Firstly, there is the emergence of what might be called un-volitional blindness, a concept

that further enhances our understanding of coach behaviour. Humans strive towards cognitive

consonance and the practice of coaches is deeply rooted in their personal experience, values and

life scripts, which in turn are profoundly influenced by master narratives of a particular culture.

Our efforts to facilitate their learning and development therefore should be focused on

interventions that consider the emotional, psychological and cultural elements that contribute to

amplifying their abilities to differentiate and self-integrate – to reconcile old beliefs with new

beliefs.

Subsequently, with regard to coach education and development there are a number of

considerations. Researchers assert that even coach education and development programs are

based on the discourses and master narratives of sport (Nelson et al., 2014; Sheridan, 2006),

which help to enculture coaches into practices that are unhelpful to them or their athletes. Kolb

(1981) suggested learning does not occur until the conflict between old beliefs and new beliefs is

resolved within the individual - a concept that speaks to the cognitive dissonance mentioned

above. It is then, perhaps, not surprising that researchers have found that the great majority of

coach learning and development programs are ineffective (Cushion, et al., 2006; Nelson, et al.,

2006; North, 2010; Trudel, Gilbert, & Werthner, 2010), to the extent that coaches pretend to be

learning (Vargas-Tonsing, 2007). One explanation might be that these programs are challenging

coaches’ ways of being, while at the same time, reinforcing dominant authoritative narratives –

imposing a cognitive dissonance. Such an understanding illuminates how cognitive dissonance

can influence the success of coach learning and development – especially in highly competitive

199
 200

environments where emotions run high and they are likely to default to their unvolitional

behaviour which is controlled largely by the master narratives.

As such, it isn’t simply a matter of changing the delivery method (facilitator vs mentor),

or context (formal vs informal), or even the content (emphasis of technocratic knowledge or

psychol/social) of coach learning and development programs. If our goal is to change coach

behaviour, we must not only disrupt the current dominant discourses, but we have to reduce the

CD and help coaches reconcile their WB with the values and meaning of the new learning. In

addition, this requires a high level of on-going support, both of which are difficult to provide in

elite sport.

The lessons learned through this research project, have the potential to contribute to the

development of sustainable coach learning and development programs. There are many important

and valuable implications to glean from the coaches’ successes.

Firstly, for future practice this study further illustrates that we can support and encourage

coach learning but we cannot force it or legislate it. Elite coaches learn in a variety of ways, some

are effective to an extent, and others not so much (Irwin et al., 2004); but what appears to be

consistent across various coach education research is the belief of coaches that they know what

they are doing (Irwin et al., 2004) - which speaks to the coach as expert theme. These erroneous

coach perceptions make the philosophical, theoretical and applied elements of SF communication

all the more important. The results indicate that a congruence between philosophical, theoretical,

and applied elements contributed to a consistency that aided learning.

Secondly, because coach development programs aim to change coach behaviour (Allan,

Vierimaa, Gainforth, & Coté, 2017), which - I have established - involves changing a coach’s

WB, as well as, acknowledging and addressing competing discourses, it is a difficult and

challenging process that deserves and requires on-going support within the team itself and

200
 201

ideally, institutionally. Therefore, it is incumbent upon sport governing bodies and institutions to

recognize these barriers to coach learning and development and address them. There is now a

virtual wealth of evidence (Stirling, 2013) that points to the relative ineffectiveness of coach

education and development programs, yet little appears to have changed with regard to how these

programs are implemented and delivered. This study highlights the value of a humanistic

coaching model, that supports coach learning and development, by helping to reconcile

competing discourses and by promoting an integrated sense of self consistent with the new

learning, while providing emotional support through the change process.

Thirdly, our experiential learning included formal learning (summer learning sessions),

informal learning (weekly coffee chats) and even non-formal learning (coach retreats); the

combination of these different learning contexts also helped to embed and support learning.

Typically, CDPs are either/or, rarely are they a combination of all learning contexts. By including

different learning contexts, we inadvertently accommodated the different learning styles of HC

and AC, which Kolb (2000) suggests influence the way one learns.

Fourthly, as indicated earlier, we incidentally created a hybrid coaching model that I call

synergistic coaching. Due to the simplicity of this model (goal orientation, resource activation,

problem disengagement, action, observation, reflection) it could quite easily be integrated into

coach learning and development programs, which we know, generally fail to address coach

communication.

Finally, although this was not a unique discovery related to our analyses, it would be

remiss of me if I failed to acknowledge that persistence played an indispensable role. Despite

push back and frustration, on all our parts, we did not give up. Without the persistent insistence

that HC continue to try and adopt the SF perspective, the project could well have failed. It may be

that persistence and support are similar or at least difficult to distinguish. Yet, whatever the

201
 202

difference, it was never a matter of delivering a learning session (even multiple sessions over

several months) and assuming the coaches could assimilate and operationalize it – especially

given their way of being and competing discourses. It required the persistent, on-going support of

a team champion and me. This type of persistence has been identified within literature as being

one of three key elements of champion behaviour (Howell & Shea, 2006) that includes:

expressing enthusiasm and confidence regarding the intervention, championing others and as

mentioned, persisting through adversity. Additionally, this type of champion behaviour is

considered essential to the success of new and innovative practices (Howell & Shea, 2006).

Researchers also suggest that coaches would like to feel a relatedness and connectedness to other

coaches and communities of practice to enhance their development (Allen & Shaw, 2009), while

other research suggest that mentors play a valuable role in coach development (Irwin et al.,

2004). For future practice then, it may be helpful to consider how embedding champions into the

learning process or creating learning dyads for coaches may be useful.

It is essential that coaches learn to communicate in a generative, strength-based manner. If

young children grew up in a sport context that consistently and persistently facilitated personal

growth and development, as well as, sport success, the effort required to facilitate change and

amplify their wellbeing would be considerably less. That is not the case however, and as a result,

it appears to be an enormous endeavour to affect change. Yet, as difficult or challenging as it may

be, our young people are worth it and this needs to become a focus of sports – the rule and not the

exception.

As society becomes more dependent on technology, researchers indicate that face-to-face

communication skills amongst young people are declining at an alarming rate (Center on Media

and Child Health, 2015; Turkle, 2012). Compared to even a few years ago, children and youth are

less adept at: eye contact, reading body language and understanding spatial awareness, focus and

202
 203

perhaps most importantly, having conversations. Correlations have been made between these

declining skills (due to social media and technology, and a lack of play), with increased rates of

anxiety and depression in children and youth (Bedell, 2016; Gray, 2011). Using SF

communication as consistently and persistently as we did, especially through best practices such

as the AAR process, we were able to influence not only the athletes’ self-actualization processes

but their adult-to-adult communication skills as well. Interestingly, there is evidence that

communication skills taught through sport are positivity transferred as personal development

(Christopher, bin Dzakiria, & bin Mohomed, 2012). This is an area where further research is

warranted.

Palmer (2007) advises that to deal with the student condition in higher education - in our

case, athletes (who are also students) - it requires a vulnerability to address the messiness of our

condition, and we must shine “the light of inquiry on messy, complex situations” (pg.7) because

if we claim to understand the condition without understanding the inner workings, we are not

fully educated. Therefore, another implication of our understanding is education, our obligation

to teach athletes about the messiness of sport and life, of vulnerability, of personal growth and

self-actualization.

Evaluating Action Research Studies

Action researchers, and more generally qualitative researchers, are often asked to consider

how their work should be evaluated (Bradbury, 2010; Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, & Davidson,

2002). Similarly, one of the most common questions in SFC is, “What difference will that

make?” Action research emphasizes the generation of local knowledge, wisdom and practice

(Bradubury, 2010) generated by the coaches and athletes through our collaboration. In addition, it

is also important and necessary to appraise the goodness of fit (Marrow, 2005) or coherence

203
 204

(Poucher, Tamminen, Caron, & Sweet, 2019) between the theory, practice and outcomes used to

answer the research questions.

Because AR is oriented more to knowledge creation generated through collaborative, real

world practice and the accomplishment of real-world goals (Bradbury 2010), it is meant to

amplify the flourishing of participants, create sustainable practices and new systems of meaning

that can be integrated into culture (Stringer, 2014). Additionally, the value of AR is often judged

by the participants themselves, as well as validated through the cycles of action/reflection and the

consistency of the project with the values presented by the researcher (McNiff & Whitehead,

2009). As I have remarked previously, the synchronicity between the theory and practice in this

study has been a contributing factor to our success. AR and SFP have humanistic philosophies

and systems theories (Greenwood, 2015; Fish, 2014; Lewis & Osborne, 2004) foundations, and

in both cases the fundamental belief that individuals or communities, or organizations, or teams

are the experts of their own experience is apparent. And finally, both AR and SFC cultivate

reflection and practical, useful knowledge that increases understanding and leads to positive

change (Bradbury 2015; Fish, 2011b; Grant & Connor, 2010).

My best hope, which I re-state here, was that our work challenged the embedded sport

discourse of our current system and that it demonstrates the value and usefulness of SF language

with regard to coach learning and development. We managed to address and answer the research

questions, while remaining faithful to our participative worldview and humanistic values. By

working collaboratively with coaches in a SF (humanistic) manner we unmasked the competing

discourses that result from the dominant discourses of coach power and authority prevalent in

elite/interuniversity sport through a critical discourse analysis and we demonstrated athlete

development (self-actualization) through a constant comparative analysis of interviews and AAR

transcripts.

204
 205

As we addressed and worked through competing discourses, coaches learned new ways to

communicate which amplified the strengths and resources of the athletes, instead using power

and fear to motivate them. This resulted in co-constructed best practices intended to reinforce

language and culture. The best practices included team documents, pre-post game rituals, and

communication practices. As such, we set and achieved real world goals, changed practice and

created new knowledge and understanding from both the coach perspective as well as the athlete

perspective. I would go so far as to say that our development includes experiential wisdom

because wisdom is concerned with values and judgement that inform understanding and

effectiveness.

This research demonstrated or helped to explain ‘how’ the noted changes in the coaches’

behaviour, athlete self-actualization and cultural change occurred (through SF language) – a

missing piece of coach learning and development, and an outcome attributed to case study

models. We were able to accomplish these goals by developing a system that focused on the

encouragement and facilitation of its’ members’ development, but not the other way around.

Finally, an important element of AR is the learning and self-reflection of the researcher

(Bradbury, 2010, 2015). As I have written throughout, this process challenged everything I

believed to be true at one point or another, especially with regard to coaching – SF and sport. I

made poor assumptions that included my understanding of goals and objectives which I thought

to be aligned, but were not; my belief that coaches were/are the villains in the elite sport equation,

but they are not; my belief that the summer learning seminars were enough to support the

coaches’ learning of SF language without supervision or support at practices during that critical

learning period, but it was not. I even waivered in my belief that change was possible – the

discourses were that strong. If it wasn’t for my critical friend who always brought me back to the

205
 206

fundamentals of SFC, curiosity and respect, and AC, who refused to give up, I’m not sure I

would have made it to the end of the season.

In coaching, we have a tenet of meeting the client where she is. As a result of this project,

my practice as an SFC has deepened. I worked creatively (with the help and support of others) to

meet HC, AC and the athletes where they were at. I dug deep, learned their language, learned

about the culture and discourses that shaped their WB, developed an overwhelming sense of awe

and respect, made friends and learned that small successes can yield big results – over time. I am

more convinced than ever, that our words make a difference and that difference is important.

AR proved to be a valuable framework for research, especially sport, where principles of

teamwork and goal setting are fundamental, and our aim must be to study this context more

holistically. At the outset, I considered myself as having more of an outsider perspective than an

insider perspective and I positioned myself at a five on the Herr and Anderson (2005) AR

continuum, which is similar to a consultancy position. By the end of the project, I was firmly a

four on the scale; there was a reciprocal collaboration with authority more equally distributed

amongst collaborators. I was part of the team. As I acknowledged earlier in the section on

positionality, insiders are privileged and awarded more respect and authority (Laboree, 2002). As

my rapport with the coaches grew, so did their trust and as a result, when I asked the head coach

to try something, even something she really didn’t want to, she would make an effort. She took

risks for me.

At the same time there are other, perhaps more functional, obligations that require me as a

doctoral student to express how I ensured the trustworthiness of the data and interpretations.

Trustworthiness in a study makes it “worth paying attention to, worth taking account of” or as

Rallis and Rossman (2009) describe it, “a set of standards that demonstrates that a research study

has been conducted competently and ethically” (p. 264). More specifically with respect to action

206
 207

research, Coghlan and colleagues (2015) suggest that the general empirical model for AR

includes: attention to experience, intelligent understandings, reasonable judgements and that the

researcher is responsible for their actions. Therefore, to demonstrate the trustworthiness of this

study, I offer as evidence the rigorous ethical approval process and ethics permission (Appendix

T); as required, the coaches and athletes voluntarily participated and were permitted to withdraw

as participants at any point in time without repercussions. Secondly, as stated earlier in the

methods sections, in this study there were two critical friends, both of whom provided a constant

and continual checking of the data and insights further strengthening the trustworthiness of the

project. Thirdly, there is the composite story, which provides rich details of the context, the arc of

the project, the challenges we faced and how they were overcome. Such a narrative, an analysis

in itself (Smith & Sparks, 2009), allows the reader to judge the integrity, usefulness, and

intellectual capital (Simons, 2014) generated by the study, and addresses Coghlan’s empirical

model. Finally, member checking was employed by giving the coaches the opportunity to review

and edit the final written product before submission to the dissertation committee in preparation

for the defence.

207
 CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusion

In this final section, I offer insights into the study’s limitations, followed by a summary of

the study’s significant findings and suggestions for next steps.

Study Limitations

Despite our successes, there were some limitations and lessons learned that are

noteworthy. Some might suggest that the case study design prevents generalization of the results.

Another limitation that may have influenced the results is the relationship I cultivated with the

HC and AC and amongst the many lessons learned, I consider the study format, clarifying goals

and objectives, as well as, staff inclusiveness to be pertinent. I provide a detailed explanation and

response to each below.

Historically, researchers have asserted that case studies prohibit the generalization of

results; however, qualitative researchers maintain that there are acceptable forms of

generalization (Gomm, Hammersley, & Foster, 2011; Simons, 2014) with case studies. In

particular, there is transferability and provocative generalizability (Smith, 2018) which asks

researchers to consider how to move their findings toward future practice. Additionally, there is

also the concept of intellectual generalization (Simons, 2014). This is where the cognitive

understanding gained from the study can help to explain other accounts, even if the setting is

different. For such generalizations to be legitimate, the case should contain deep, rich

descriptions, people’s voices and enough detail about contexts to provide a vicarious experience

that allows others to determine whether or not their situation is similar to the one described

(Simons, 2014). This study meets those standards and as well, provides rich intellectual capital

regarding coach learning and development.

208
 209

Wisely, some committee members, very early in the research process, asked whether or

not the success of the intervention might be attributed to the mature relationship and rapport I

cultivated with HC and AC, instead of the intervention itself. At the time, and still, the point

requires some serious consideration. Our relationships greatly influenced our success and may in

fact have been one of the most important factors. Significantly however, researchers suggest that

the quality of relationship between coach and coachee may be one of the most important factors

of success (O’Broin & Palmer, 2016). Certainly, within the SF framework, rapport is considered

an essential element and is emphasized through a fundamental question type noted earlier as

relationship questions. As such, the intervention requires rapport in order to be effective. The

intervention is not and cannot be independent of our relationships. The implication being that,

when implementing coach development programmes, practitioners/researchers have to attend to

both the relationship and the theoretical practices.

As mentioned, upon reflection, some changes to the format could have reduced some of

the challenges posed by the competing discourses. Knowing what I know now, I would

incorporate extra sessions into the coach learning phase to explore explicitly the coaches’ sense

of self, values and beliefs. In other words, I would coach the coach and then begin to incorporate

learning sessions. Aside from another opportunity to build rapport, this might reduce the way-of-

being conflict that could arise once competition begins. The coach would already have a better

understanding of who they are, what they value, how their narrative intersects with context and

how they might deal with the conflict if/when it arises.

Adding such a step also has implications for aligning goals and objectives. Despite the

fact that goal clarification is an important element of SF coaching, I am now aware of the

mistakes I made in this regard. Earlier, I mentioned that at a crisis point in the season, I came to

understand that I had confused HC’s goals and motives with our objectives. I thought her goal
 210

was to learn SF coaching skills in an effort to transform her personal coaching development and

although there was certainly an understanding that the study was about the coaches learning SF

coaching skills, I never clarified with her, her personal goals. Instead, I clarified our objectives

(to improve team culture and have athletes who could think for themselves and who were

engaged). HC’s goal was to win games, which she associated with success; she was willing to

learn SF coaching skills, if they were the means to those ends. I recognize now, that I expected

her to change her values and beliefs, her WB; while she simply wanted some skills to add to her

coaching toolkit. Given that effective coaching, SF, or otherwise, involves helping to enhance

actualizing tendencies and the ability to integrate goals with those tendencies (Burke & Linley,

2007), I wasn’t very effective in the beginning.

Finally, I would insist that all of the coaching staff participate in the learning process.

This would greatly reduce CDs and enhance cohesion. The power of scripts and narratives in

sport combined to reinforce and enhance autobiographical narratives and shape culture is not to

be underestimated. CDs that disrupt tenuous learning/change and exacerbate the conflict inherent

when our WB is challenged, are extremely detrimental unless foreseen. By including all coaching

staff, not only are the CDs reduced but there is a valuable consistency and coherence that helps to

further engage and support change.

Summary of Significance

This study makes significant contributions to both the practice and the theoretical and

empirical literature on coach learning and development. Firstly there is the articulation of specific

coaching discourse themes; secondly, an understanding of how coach learning is impacted and

influenced by discourses that compete with their way of being, and thirdly, there is a new concept

that I call un-volitional blindness. Most notably, perhaps, is how this study contributed to the
 211

development of a new model of coaching and communication that I call synergistic coaching.

Finally, there is our increased understanding about how SFC disrupted the dominant discourses

while helping to create and sustain an integrated WB, enhance learning and development while

amplifying cultural change and athlete development,

This study exposes sport as impoverished, as a result of entrenched narratives and

discourses with a limited vocabulary. In fact, one of the meaningful contributions of this work is

the identification of coaching discourses that supported entrenched coach behaviours. These

included: the hard work/the tough coach theme, the great sport myth theme. the coach as expert

theme, the ends justify the means theme, and good players want this theme. By articulating these

coaching discourses more explicitly, we create a new and enlarged vocabulary that enables an

acknowledgement of the full range of humanity, including the darker sides that from time-to-time

invade sport. Such a vocabulary can help alert us to problems and to be appropriately responsive,

rather than passively compliant.

Another compelling contribution of this study is the enhanced understanding of how a

coach’s sense of self, or way of being - the synthesis of their personal narratives, values and

emotions, with the master narratives of sport - either contributes to or conflicts with their learning

and development. Entangled with a coach’s WB are competing discourses which occur both

personally and professionally. These personal and professional conflicts are incited when

established behaviours are confronted by new values and learning that ‘make sense’ on an

intellectual level but conflict with their current WB. Similarly, un-volitional blindness is the

rootedness of the coach’s WB in the master narratives of sport, to the extent that they justify their

behaviour, allowing the coach to avoid cognitive dissonance and maintain their WB.

The addition that the SF intervention makes to our understanding of coach learning and

development is consequential. SF communication provides the language tools coaches need to

 212

enrich their moral and principled vocabulary in a manner that is congruent with values that are

concerned with humanistic athlete development. The language skills particular to SFC (types of

questions to ask and stances to assume) aid in the development of attitudes that are motivating,

empowering and which support goal development and strategies; in addition, SFC emphasizes

competence, skills, respect and hope (O’Connell & Palmer, 2007). Our intervention enabled HC

to differentiate and self-integrate because it helped her to reconcile her WB with these values and

meaning. As stated previously, this learning aided her independence from the prescription of

sport’s cultural forces because she was able to grasp and transform her experience (Kolb, 2005)

by resolving the competing discourses (Kolb, 1981). As a result, her WB expanded as her

competence and confidence with the SF model grew, which in turn provided new meaning and

value, subsequently enhancing the culture and facilitating behavioural change (Paufler &

Amerien-Beardsley, 2015).

SFC provided a set of linguistic tools and fundamental guiding principles for adult to

adult conversations. The language changed the coaches’ personal narratives, as well as the master

narratives or discourses of sport and therefore it changed their meaning and understanding of

what their role as coach was, what it meant to coach effectively, as well as what it meant to be

generative and athlete-focused. It highlighted the competing discourses and helped them to

change their way of being by enabling them to be independent from the prescriptions of dominant

sport culture and instead, to be grounded in their own sense of being, competence, effectiveness

and mastery associated with being a fully self-actualized individual (Venter, 2016).

By answering the first part of the research question, how do SF coaching skills help

improve the communication skills/behaviours of the coaching staff, the second part of the

question, how do these skills interrupt the dominant coaching discourse prevalent in elite sport,

was answered. As we have learned, language and culture are inseparable (Bruner, 1990). HC’s
 213

language and behaviour could not have changed if she hadn’t disrupted the prescriptions of the

dominant discourses of sport for herself.

Language is both performative and constitutive (Wetherall, 2015); the narratives and

discourses of a culture help to explain and guide behaviour. The language used in the telling of

stories helps us to negotiate our roles, make sense of what is happening and influences our

contributions (Mattingly et al., 2008). Language and culture are determinants of the self-narrative

process (Bakhurst &Shanker, 2015; Bruner, 1990; Geertz, 2001). Therefore, changes to how

language is used brings about changes in practices and conduct because individuals reinterpret

past meanings; getting people to think differently changes behaviour (Showkeir & Showkeir,

2008; Tsoukas, 2005). According to researchers (Showkeir & Showkeir, 2008; Tsoukas, 2005)

language is how change is initiated and is itself changed as a result of cultural changes; new

language alerts members to the narrator and narration that is told. Changing the language and

nature of the conversation acknowledges the lived experience of the individual (Showkeir &

Showkeir, 2008).

Showkeir and Showkeir maintain that establishing new conversations within an

organization is the most effective and underutilized manner of effecting long-lasting change.

They insist that this can be accomplished by changing the nature of the conversation from parent-

child, to adult-adult. In organizations where power and authority are hierarchical and compliance

is highly valued (sport context), parent-child roles are generally established; however, where

flexibility and innovation are highly valued the dominant roles are adult-adult. By changing the

nature of our conversations, we create an awareness of our role in supporting behaviours that are

ineffective or even harmful. SFC in many ways inherently promotes an adult-adult manner of

communication because it is questioning rather than directive, it is respectful in its’ assumptions

 214

that the individual (or team) have the capacity to solve their own problems and it facilitates

growth as well as reflection.

Finally, as result of the congruency between our theories and practice, a new model of

coaching emerged that I have called synergistic coaching. Using the vocabulary, language and

principles of solution-focused communication and a framework that combines the cyclical

practice of action research and a SF taxonomy, cooperation and collaboration between coach and

athlete were promoted in a manner that is inherently generative for both; supporting congruency

between theory, practice, values, and outcomes.

Future Directions

Researchers note that the study of coach behaviours, coach development, and coach

learning is complicated because coaches are embedded in a complex social system of

expectations, relationships and stakeholders (Côté & Gilbert, 2009). It is often hypothesized that

poor coaching behaviours are the result of socialization and normalization (Cook & Kerr, 2015;

Kerr & Stirling, 2012; Nelson et al., 2014) within these systems where discourses of coach

authority and athlete compliance are so embedded that the culture is resistant to change (Cassidy,

Jones, & Potrac, 2009) and reinforced by coach education programs (Nelson et al., 2014).

Researchers also assert that coach development programs are considered fundamental tools

within sport organizations for changing coach behaviour (Lefebvre, Evans, Turnnidge, Gainforth,

& Côté , 2016), yet applied programs, like our SF intervention, are rarely studied (Lefebvre et al.,

2016) and there is little understanding about the theories, techniques and behavioural change that

accompany them (Allan, Vierimaa, Gainforth, & Côté, 2017).

The lessons learned through this research project have the potential to contribute to the

development of sustainable coach learning and development programs. Firstly, coach

 215

development programs aim to change coach behaviour (Allan, Vierimaa, Gainforth, & Coté,

2017), which - I propose - involves changing a coach’s way of being, as well as, acknowledging

and addressing competing discourses. Therefore, our efforts to facilitate learning and

development should be focused on interventions that consider the emotional, psychological and

cultural elements that contribute to amplifying their abilities to differentiate and self-integrate –

reconcile old beliefs with new beliefs. As we noted, this requires a high level of support and

monitoring, both of which are difficult to provide in elite sport and highlight the importance of

institutional and organizational support at all levels of sport. Ideally, if coaches were taught

synergistic coaching at the very beginning of their coaching journeys/careers, the effort and

resources required would be considerably less. Future studies involving synergistic coaching with

coaches having varying years of experience, would be useful.

Coach development programs rarely combine all the learning contexts, as ours did. Our

study included experiential learning in a formal learning context (summer learning sessions),

informal learning (weekly coffee chats) and even non-formal learning (coach retreats). The

combination of these learnings may have contributed to the success of our intervention and

accommodated the different learning styles of HC and AC. Perhaps forthcoming studies can use

multiple learning contexts to explore enhanced learning.

Furthermore, the master narratives identified in the study warrant further investigation. It

might be useful for researchers to ask: are these master discourses, are there other more powerful

discourses that influence coaching behaviour, how do these discourses influence other

stakeholder groups, institutions? Qualitative, humanistic frameworks (cultural psychology and

humanistic psychology) might include more case study approaches with multiple cases from

different geographic regions, or different stakeholder groups, even different levels of competitive

sport. Interviews and/or focus group discussions that use discourse analysis methods including
 216

thematic analysis, constant comparative analysis (with more of an emphasis on grounded theory)

might help to reveal the pervasiveness and impact of these master narratives in different contexts.

Such research would provide a more thorough understanding of the links between language,

discourse and behaviour, how values and meaning are adopted and endorsed within sport

contexts and society; such an understanding is necessary for the development and implementation

of effective programmes. Additionally, an exploration of how social media contributes to these

master narratives would be useful and help to inform practice and education around alternative

messaging.

There is a need to teach synergistic coaching and communication to the parents of

athletes. Parents are considered essential to an athlete’s success and wellbeing and researchers

assert they should be part of the education process (Sukys, 2015). By teaching parents these

skills, they can learn to expand their vocabulary, align their values and contribute to a new

culture of sport.

Finally, it is essential that we do more action research in the sport domain, working

collaboratively and synergistically with coaches and athletes to ensure their experiences and

voices are authentically represented. In particular, researchers assert that the practice and culture

of sport organizations impact coaches’ experience and yet we have a poor understanding of how

to support the wellbeing and psychological needs of female coaches (Allen & Shaw, 2009).

Again, how do cultural discourses influence their behaviour and wellbeing, and how do

organizations support the psychological needs of their female coaches? Allen and Shaw (2009)

suggest we need a much better understanding of the day-to-day work of coaches, which could be

accomplished in a study similar to ours (action research) or even an ethnographic study.

Understanding how a coach’s way of being or personal narratives are supported or challenged by
 217

day-to-day practices could inform more effective support mechanisms, as well as professional

development.

Final Thoughts

I have a great sense of satisfaction knowing that our intervention touched on so many

issues associated with the unquestioned power of cultural discourses that contribute to the faulty

assumptions and myths supported by a winner-focused culture (Tippet, 2018). This study

illustrates how the unobjectionable use of language pacifies and camouflages the real problem

associated with sport; but more importantly it pointed to effective practice that influences positive

change. Knowing that we have demonstrated the power of language to facilitate meaningful

personal and organizational development makes me hopeful.

 References

Ackoff, R. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16(1), 3-9.
Ahlberg, M., Mallett, C. J., & Tinning, R. (2008). Developing autonomy supportive coaching
behaviours: An action research approach to coach development. International Journal of
Coaching, 2(2), 3–22.
Akrivou, K. (2008). Differentiation and integration in adult development: The influence of self-
complexity and integrative learning on self- integration (Doctoral dissertation, Case
Western Reserve University). Retrieved from:
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=case1214318290&disposition=inline
Allan, V., Vierimaa, M., Gainforth, H., & Côté, J. (2017). The use of behaviour change theories
and techniques in research-informed coach development programmes: A systematic
review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 47-69.
Allen, J. & Shaw, S. (2009). Women coaches’ perceptions of their sport organizations’ social
environment: Supporting coaches’ psychological needs? The Sport Psychologist, 23, 346-
366.
Aragn, A. & Castillo-Burgete, M. (2015). Introduction to Practices. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The
SAGE handbook of action research ( 3rd ed., pp. 13-16). London: Sage Publications.
Avner, Z. (2014). What can Foucault tell us about fun in sport? A Foucaldian critical
examination of the discursive production and deployment of fun within interuniversity
coaching contexts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Baird, L., Holland, P., & Deacon, S. (1999). Learning from action: Imbedding more learning into
the performance fast enough to make a difference. Organizational Dynamics, 27(4), 19-
32.
Bakhtin, M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bamberg, M. (2012). Narrative discourse. Narrative Inquiry, 1, 1-6.
Bannink, F. F. P. (2007). Solution-focused mediation: The future with a difference. Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, 25(2), 163–183.
Bannink, F.P. (2007b). Solution focused brief therapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy,
37(2), 87-94. 218
Bannink, F. & Jackson, P. (2011). Positive psychology and solution focus – Looking at
similarities and differences. Interaction. The Journal of Solution Focus in Organizations,
3(1), 8-20.
Bakhurst, D., & Shanker, S. G. (Eds.). (2015). Jerome S. Bruner beyond 100.
Champaign, IL: Springer.
Barcza-Renner, K., Eklund, R., Morin, A., & Habeeb, C. (2016). Controlling coaching
behaviours and athlete burnout: Investigating the mediating roles of perfectionism and
motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38, 30-44.
Barlow, A., & Banks, A.P. (2014). Using emotional intelligence in coaching high-performance
athletes: a randomised controlled trial. Coaching: An international journal of theory,
research and practice, 7, 132-139.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. Snyder &
S. Lopez (Eds.). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608-618). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bauserman, J. & Rule, W. (1995). A brief history of systems approaches in counseling and
psychotherapy. Lanham, NY: University Press of America, Inc.
Baxter, L. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 1-22.
Bell, A. (2011). Re-constructing Babel: Discourse analysis, hermeneutics and the interpretive
Arc. Discourse Studies, 13(5), 519-568.
Bedell, G. (2016). Children, mental health and the internet in 2016. Retrieved from:
https://parentzone.org.uk/article/children-mental-health-and-internet-2016
Berg, I. K., & Szabo, P. (2005). Brief coaching for lasting solutions. New York, NY: WW
Norton & Company.
Bolter, N. (2010). Coaching for character: Mechanism of influence on adolescent athletes’
Sportsmanship (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota. Retrieved
from:
http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/95905/Bolter_umn_0130E_11394.pd
f?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Bolter, N. D., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Coaching behaviours and adolescent athletes’
sportspersonship outcomes: Further validation of the sportsmanship coaching behaviours
scale (SCBS). Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology, 2(1), 32–47.
219
Boroditsky, L. (2018). How language shapes the way we think [Video file]. Retrieved from:
https://www.ted.com/talks/lera_boroditsky_how_language_shapes_the_way_we_think?la
nguage=en
Bouton, M. (2000). A learning theory perspective on lapse, relapse, and the maintenance of
behaviour change. Health Psychology, 19(1), 57–63.
Bown, J.D. (2011) Likert items and scales of measurement? SHIKEN: JALT Testing &
Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 15(1), 10-14.
Brackenridge, C., Bringer, J., & Bishop, D. (2005). Managing cases of abuse in sport. Child
Abuse Review, 14(4), 259-274.
Bradbury, H. (2010). What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest? Action
Research, 8(1), 93-109.
Bradbury, H. (2015). The Sage handbook of action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Brake, D. L. (2012). Going outside title IX to keep coach-athlete relationships in bounds.
Marquette Sports Law Review, 22(2), 395–425.
Braun, V. & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braunstein, K. & Grant, A. (2016). Approaching solutions or avoiding problems? The
differential effects of approach and avoidance goals with solution-focused and problem-
focused coaching questions. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research
and Practice, 9(2), 93-109.
Bruner, J. (1990). Culture and human development: A new look. Human Development, 33(6),
344-355.
Bruner, J. (2008). Culture and mind: Their fruitful incommensurability. Ethos, 36(1), 29-45.
Bruner, M. W., Erickson, K., Wilson, B., & Côté, J. (2010). An appraisal of athlete development
models through citation network analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(2), 133-
139.
Burke, M. (2001). Obeying until it hurts: Coach-athlete relationships. Journal of the Philosophy
of Sport, 28(2), 227–240.

220
Burgoon, J., & Le Poire, B. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual
communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and
their communication behaviour. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 67–96.
Burke, D. & Linley, A. (2007). Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching. International
Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 62-69.
Burns, S. (1995). Rapid changes require enhancement of adult learning. HR Monthly, 16-17.
Butler, T. (1998). Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research into information
systems. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 285-300.
Cavanaugh, M. & Grant, A.M. (2010). The solution-focused approach to coaching. In, E. Cox, T.
Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (54-67).
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Callary, B., Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2012). How meaningful episodic experiences influence
the process of becoming an experienced coach. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 4(3), 420–438.
Carless, D., & Douglas, K. (2011). Stories as personal coaching philosophy. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 6(1), 1-12.
Carruther, P. (2002). The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23,
657-726.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching: The social, cultural
and pedagogical foundations of sports practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge
Cassidy, T. (2010). Holism in sports coaching: Beyond humanistic psychology. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 5(4), 439–501.
Cavallerio, F., Wadey, R., & Wagstaff, C. R. (2016). Understanding overuse injuries in rhythmic
gymnastics: A 12-month ethnographic study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 25, 100-
109.
Center on Media and Child Health. (2015). Is technology decreasing kids’ ability to communicate
face-to-face? Retrieved at: https://cmch.tv/is-tech-decreasing-kids-communication/
Chase, M. A. (2010). Should coaches believe in innate ability? The importance of leadership
mindset. Quest, 62(3), 296-307.
Christopher, A., bin Dzakiria, H., bin Mohamed, A. (2012). Teaching English through sports: a
case study. Asian EFL Journal, 59, 20-29.
221
Chrusciel, D. (2008). What motivates the significant/strategic change champion(s)? Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 21(2), 148-160.
Claringbould, I., Knoppers, A., & Jacobs, F. (2015). Young athletes and their coaches:
disciplinary processes and habitus development. Leisure Studies, 34(3), 319-334.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there, putting the brain, body and world together again. Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
Clarke, H., Smith, D., & Thibault, G. (1994). Athlete-Centered Sport Discussion Paper
November 1994. Retrieved from:
https://athletescan.com/sites/default/files/images/athlete_centered_sport_-
_discussion_paper.pdf
Coach Mac. (October 19, 2015). Twitter. Retrieved from:
https://twitter.com/bballcoachmac/status/656035614412939264?lang=en
Coaching Association of Canada. (n.d.). www.coach.ca
Coakley, J. (2011). Youth sports: What counts as “positive development?” Journal of Sport &
Social Issues, 35(3), 306–324.
Coakley, J. (2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On cultural sensibilities. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(4-5), 402-406.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. (2015). Developing the practice of leading change through insider
action research: A dynamic capability perspective. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The SAGE
handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 47-54). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Coleman, G. (2015). Core issues in modern epistemology for action researchers: Dancing
between knower and known. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of action
research (3rd ed., pp. 392-400). London, England: Sage Publications.
Compton, W. C. (2001). Toward a tripartite factor structure of mental health: Subjective well-
being, personal growth, and religiosity. The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 486–500.
Compton, W. C., Smith, M. L., Cornish, K. A., & Quails, D. L. (1996). Factor structure of mental
health measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 406–413.
Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Coach training as a strategy for promoting youth
social development. The Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 128.

222
Conquergood, D. (1995). Between rigor and relevance: Rethinking applied
communication. Applied communication in the 21st century, 79-96.
Cook, E. & Kerr, G. (2016). Shifting from emotional harm to optimizing growth: The role of
athlete-centered sport. In Y. Vanden Auweele, E., Cook, E. & J. Parry, (Eds), Ethics
and governance in sport: The future of sport imagined (pp.67-75). London, U.K:
Routledge.
Cook, E., Kerr, G.A.; Stirling, A. E. & Dorsch, K. (2014). ‘Willful Blindness’ as a
contributor to Athlete Maltreatment. Paper presented at the European College of Sport
Science Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, July 2-5.
Côté, J., Bruner, M., Erickson, K., Strachan, L., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2010). Athlete
development and coaching. In J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching
professionalism and practice (pp. 63–84). London: Elsevier.
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(3), 307–323.
Côté, J. (2006). The development of coaching knowledge. International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching, 1(3), 217–222.
Côté, J., & Sedgwick, W. A. (2003). Effective behaviours of expert rowing coaches: A
qualitative investigation of Canadian athletes and coaches. International Sports
Journal, 7(1), 62.
Cotton, J. (2010). Question utilization in solution-focused brief therapy: A recursive frame
analysis of Insoo Kim Berg’s solution talk. Qualitative Report, 15(1), 18–36.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. New York, NY: Pearson
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cronin, G., & Andrews, S. (2009). After action reviews: a new model for learning: Gerard
Cronin and Steven Andrews explain why after action reviews are an ideal model for
healthcare professionals to analyse and learn from events. Emergency Nurse, 17(3), 32-
36.
223
Culver, D. M., Trudel, P., & Werthner, P. (2009). A sport leader’s attempt to foster a
coaches' community of practice. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 4(3), 365–383.
Cumming, S. P., Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Grossbard, J. R. (2007). Is winning everything?
The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentage in youth
sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(3), 322-336.
Cunanan, E. D., & McCollum, E. E. (2006). What works when learning solution-focused brief
therapy: A qualitative study of trainees’ experiences. Journal of Family Psychotherapy,
17(1), 49–65.
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing
professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215-230.
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Locating the coaching process in practice:
models “for” and “of” coaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 83–99.
Cushion, C. J. (2014). Re -visiting coach behaviour: How effective is your coaching practice?
Retrieved from http://www.athleteassessments.com/re-visiting-coach-behaviour/
Cushion, A. C., Nelson, L., Lyle, J., Jones, R., Sandford, R., & Callaghan, C. O. (2010,
January). Coach learning and development: A review of literature. Sports Coach U.K.
Retrieved from: http://msvsc02-g284nc.uv.netbenefit.com/sites/default/files/Coach-
Learning-and-Devopment-Review.pdf
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Power, discourse, and symbolic violence in
professional youth soccer: The case of Albion football club. Sociology of Sport Journal,
23, 142–161.
Cushion, C. & Nelson, L. (2013). Coach education and learning: Developing the field. In
P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports
coaching (pp. 359-374). London: Routledge.
Darling, M., Parry, C., & Moore, J. (2005). Learning in the thick of it. Harvard Business
Review, 83(7), 84.
de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y., Korman, H., Trepper, T., McCollum, E., & Berg, I. (2007). More than
miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York, NY:
Routledge.

224
Davis, J. (2007). Rethinking the architecture: An action researcher’s resolution to writing and
presenting their thesis. Action Research, 5(2), 181-198
Denison, J. (2007). Social theory for coaches: A Foucauldian reading of one athlete's poor
performance. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2(4), 369-383.
Denison, J., Mills, J. P., & Jones, L. (2013). Effective coaching as a modernist formation. In P.
Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds). Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 388-
399). Abingdon: Routledge.
Dixon, M., Lee, S., & Ghaye, T. (2013). Reflective practices for better sports coaches and coach
education: shifting from a pedagogy of scarcity to abundance in the run-up to Rio 2016.
Reflective Practice, 14(5), 585–599.
Elliot, R. & Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research.
In A. Miles and P. Gilbert (Eds.), A handbook of research methods for clinical and health
psychology (pp. 147-159). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Eitzen, D. S. (2016). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport. Landom, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Erfan, A. & Torbert, B. (2015). Collaborative developmental action inquiry. In H.
Bradbury (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of action research ( 3rd Ed., pp.64-75). London,
England: Sage Publications.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. The British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113–136.
Erickson, K., Bruner, M. W., MacDonald, D. J., & Côté, J. (2008). Gaining insight into actual
and preferred sources of coaching knowledge. International Journal of Sports Science
and Coaching, 3(4), 527–538.
Evans, M., McGuckin, M., Gainforth, H., Bruner, M., & Côté, J. (2015). Coach development
programmes to improve interpersonal coach behaviours: A systematic review using the
re-aim framework. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(13), 871-877.
Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2004). Critical realism and semiosis. Realism, Discourse
and Deconstruction, 23-42.
Fasting, K., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2005). The grooming process in sport: case studies of sexual
harassment and abuse. School of Sport and Education Research Papers, 13(1), 33-52.
Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-106.
225
Fetterman, D. (2015). Empowerment evaluation and action research: A convergence of values,
principles and purpose. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of action
research ( 3rd ed., pp.83-89). London, England: Sage Publications.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). ‘Science’ The myth and its role in society. Inquiry, 18(2), 167-181.
Fine, M. (2006). Bearing witness: Methods for researching oppression and resistance — A
textbook for critical research. Social Justice Research, 19(1), 83–108.
Fish, J. M. (2011). Strategic Thoughts About Solution-Focused. In The Concept of Race and
Psychotherapy (pp. 133-138) New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Fish, J. M. (2011b). A Cross-Cultural View of Solution-Focused. In The Concept of Race and
Psychotherapy (Vol. 1, pp. 139–158). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business
Media.
Fisher Turesky, E., & Gallagher, D. (2011). Know the self: Coaching leadership using Kolb’s
experiential learning theory. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(1), 5–14.
Fivush, R., Habermas, T., Waters, T., & Zaman, W. (2011). The making of autobiographical
memory: Intersections of culture, narrative and identity. International Journal of
Psychology, 46(5), 321-345.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating
qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717-732.
Ford, P., Coughlan, E., & Williams, M. (2009). The expert-performance approach as a
framework for understanding and enhancing coaching performance, expertise and
learning. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(3), 451–463.
Fox, A. (2006). The importance of coaching control. International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 1(1), 19-21.
Fram, S. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. The
Qualitative Report, 18(1), 1-25.
Fraser-Thomas, J., & Côté, J. (2006). Youth sports: Implementing findings and moving forward
with research. Athletic Insight, 8(3), 12–27.
Fredrickson, B. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The American
Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367.
226
French, W. & Bell, C. (1973). Organization development: Behavioural science interventions
for organization improvement. Prentice Hall: New Jersey
Frey, M. (2007). College coaches’ experiences with stress— “Problem solvers” have problems,
too. The Sport Psychologist, 21(1), 38-57.
Gadamer, H. G. (1972). The science of the life-world. In E. Husserl & L. Hardy (Eds.) The later
Husserl and the idea of phenomenology (pp. 173-185). Springer, Dordrecht.
Gauker, C. (2003). Words without meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gearity, B. T., & Murray, M. A. (2011). Athletes’ experiences of the psychological effects of
poor coaching. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 12(3), 213–221.
Geertz, C. (2001). Imbalancing act: Jerome Bruner’s Cultural Psychology. In P. Bakhurst & S.
Shanker (Eds.), Jerome Bruner: Language, culture, self (pp. 19-30). London: SAGE
Publications.
Gelston, D. (2005). Temple suspends Chaney for using "Goon". Retrieved February 25, 2005,
from LexisNexis Academic.
George, M. G. (2006) The power of positive pedagogy. Retrieved from:
http://www.musiclearningcommunity.com/NewsletterArchive/2006October.The%20Pow
er%20of%20Positive%20Pedagogy.htm
Gervis, M., & Dunn, N. (2004). The emotional abuse of elite child athletes by their coaches.
Child Abuse Review, 13, 215-223.
Gervis, M. (2010). From concept to model: A new theoretical framework to understand the
process of emotional abuse in elite child sport. In C. H Brackenridge & D. Rhind (Eds.)
Elite child athlete welfare: International perspectives (pp. 60-69). London: Brunel
University Press.
Gharajdaghi, J. & Ackoff, R. (1984). Mechanisms, organisms and social systems. Strategic
Management Journal, 5, 289-300.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkley, CA: University of California
Press.
Giges, B., Petitpas, A. J., & Vernacchia, R. A. (2004). Helping coaches meet their own needs:
Challenges for the sport psychology consultant. The Sport Psychologist, 18(4), 430-444.

227
Gilbert, W. D., & Côté, J. (2013). Defining coaching effectiveness: A focus on coaches'
knowledge. In. P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports
coaching (pp. 147-159). London: Routledge.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: reflection in model
youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(1), 16-34.
Gilbert, W., Gallimore, R., & Trudel, P. (2009). A Learning community approach to coach
development in youth sport. Journal of Coaching Education, 2(2), 1–21.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2006). The coach as reflective practitioner. In R. Jones (Ed.), The
sports coach as educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching (pp. 113-127). London:
Routledge.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (1999). Framing the construction of coaching knowledge in
experiential learning theory. Sociology of Sport Online, 1(1), 1–8.
Gingerich, W. J., & Peterson, L. T. (2013). Social work practice effectiveness of solution-focused
brief of controlled outcome studies. Research in Science Education, 23, 266–283.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Glass, C. (2001). Exploring what works: Is SF the best way of harnessing the impact of positive
psychology in the workplace? InterAction, 1(1), 26–41.
Gordon, S. (2012). Existential time and the meaning of human development. The Humanistic
Psychologist, 32, 79–86.
Gough, B. (2015). Qualitative methods. In I. Parker (Ed), Handbook of critical psychology (pp.
107-115). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Petlichkoff, L (1987). Psychological foundations of
coaching: Similarities and differences among intercollegiate wrestling coaches. The Sport
Psychologist, 1, 293–308.
Grant, A. M. (2006). A personal perspective on professional coaching and the development of
coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 12-22.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Enhancing coaching skills and emotional intelligence through
training. Industrial and commercial training, 39(5), 257-266.
Grant, A. M. (2011). The Solution-Focused Inventory–A tripartite taxonomy for teaching,
measuring and conceptualising solution-focused approaches to coaching. The Coaching
Psychologist, 7(2), 98-106.
228
Grant, A. M., (2014). The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organizational change.
Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 258-28.
Grant, A. M., Cavanagh, M. J., Kleitman, S., Spence, G., Lakota, M., & Yu, N. (2012).
Development and validation of the solution-focused inventory. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 7(4), 334–348.
Grant, A. M., & Connor, S. A. O. (2010). The differential effects of solution-focused and
problem-focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(2), 102–111.
Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents.
American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443-463.
Greene, J. C. (2013). Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation. New Direction for
Evaluations, 138, 109-119.
Greene, J. C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation.
Evaluation, 7(1), 25–44.
Greene, J. C., & Hall, J. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In A.
Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioural research (pp. 119-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Greene, J. C. (2012). Engaging critical issues in social inquiry by mixing methods. American
Behavioural Scientist, 56(6), 755-773.
Green, L. S., Oades, L. G., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused life
coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 1(3), 142–149.
Greenwood, D. & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Greenwood, D. (2015). Evolutionary systems thinking: What Gregory Bateson, Jacob Moreno
offered to action research that still remains to be learned. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), Handbook
of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 425-433). London,
England: Sage Publications.
Greenwood, D. (2015, b). An analysis of the theory/concept entries in the SAGE Encyclopedia
of Action Research: What we can learn about action research in general from the
encyclopedia. Action Research, 13(2), 198-213.
229
Gruber, T. (n.d.) What is an Ontology. Retrieved august 5, 2016 from:
http://ejournal.narotama.ac.id/files/Ontology..pdf
Guilianotti, R., (2004). Human rights, globalization and sentimental education: the case of sport.
Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 7(4), 355-369.
Hampton, J. A. (2002). Language’ role in enabling abstract, logical thought. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 25(6), 688-688.
Handal, G. (1999). Consultation using critical friends. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 79 (Fall), 59-70.
Hartill, M. (2009). The sexual abuse of boys in organized male sports. Men & Masculinities,
12(2), 225-249.
Haselwood, D. M., Joyner, A. B., Burke, K. L., Geyerman, C. B., Czech, D. R., Munkasy, B. A.,
& Zwald, A. D. (2005). Female athletes’ perceptions of head coaches’ communication
competence. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 28, 216-230.
Hendy, J. & Barlow, J. (2012). The role of the organizational champion in achieving health
system change. Social Science & Medicine, 74(3), 348-355.
Heffernan, M. (2011). Wilful blindness: Why we ignore the obvious. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Heikkala, J. (1993). Discipline and excel: Techniques of the self and body and the logic of
competing. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10(4), 397-412.
Henning, S. (2009). Towards a System Psychodynamic Model of Psychological Wellness.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa
Herr, K & Anderson, G (2005). Action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hill, K. (2001). Frameworks for sport psychologists. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hodgson, L., Butt, J., & Maynard, I. (2017). Exploring the psychological attributes underpinning
elite sports coaching. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 12(4), 439-
451.
Høigaard, R. & Johansen, B. (2004). The solution-focused approach in sport psychology. The
Sport Psychologist, 18, 218-228.
Hök, L. (2011). 1st international congress of coaching psychology – an update from the Swedish
congress. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(2), 162-164.
230
Holt, N. L. (2008). Positive youth development through sport. London: Routledge.
Holt, N. L., Tamminen, K. A., Tink, L. N., & Black, D. E. (2009). An interpretive analysis of life
skills associated with sport participation. Qualitative research in sport and exercise, 1(2),
160-175.
Howell, J. & Shea, C. (2006). Effects of champion behavior, team potency, and external
communication activities on predicting team performance. Group & Organization
Management, 31(2), 180-211.
Hoyt, M. (2001). Interviews with brief therapy experts. Philadelphia, PA.: Brunner-Routledge.
Hughes, C., Lee, S., & Chesterfield, G. (2009). Innovation in sports coaching: the
implementation of reflective cards. Reflective Practice, 10(3), 367–384.
Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices. Interaction in research writing. English Text
Construction, 1(1), 5-22.
Irwin, G., Hanton, S., & Kerwin, D. (2004). Reflective practice and the origins of elite
coaching knowledge. Reflective Practice, 5(3), 425–442.
Ives, Y. (2008). What is “Coaching”? An exploration of conflicting paradigms. International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 6(2), 100–113.
Iveson, C. (2002). Solution-focused brief therapy. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 8, 149–
156.
Ivtzan, I., Gardner, H. E., Bernard, I., Sekhon, M., & Hart, R. (2013). Wellbeing through self-
fulfilment: Examining developmental aspects of self-actualization. The Humanistic
Psychologist, 41(2), 119–132.
Jackendoff, R. (2003). Précis of foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 651-707.
Jackson, M. (1991). Social systems theory and practice: The need for a critical approach. In
Robert Flood and Michael Jackson (Eds), Critical systems thinking: Directed readings
(pp. 117-137). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Johns, D. & Johns, J. (2000). Surveillance, subjectivism and technologies of power. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35(2), 219-234.
Johnson, B. (2008). Living with tensions. Journal of Mixed Method Research, 2(3), 203–207.

231
Johnson, R. B. & Stefurak, T. (2013). Considering the evidence-and-credibility discussion in
evaluation through the lens of dialectical pluralism. New Directions of Evaluation, 138,
37-48.
Jambor, E., & Zhang, J. (1997). Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level using the
Revised Leadership Scale for Sport. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 20(3), 313–321.
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2003). Constructing expert knowledge: A case study
of a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport, Education and Society, 8(2), 213-229.
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: From practice to
theory. United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Jones, R. L., & Wallace, M. (2005). Another bad day at the training ground: Coping with
ambiguity in the coaching context. Sport, Education and Society, 10(1), 119–134.
Jordan, S. S., & Bavelas, J. B. (2013). Introduction to SFBT contributions to practice-oriented
research. Part I: Microanalysis of communication. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 32(3),
13–16.
Jowett, S. (2005). On repairing and enhancing the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowett & M.
Jones (Eds.), The psychology of coaching (pp. 14–26). Leicester: The British
Psychological Society, Sport and Exercise Psychology Division.
Jowett, S. (2005b). The coach athlete partnership. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 412–415.
Jowett, S. (2007). Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee
(Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 15–27). Champaign, IL, US.: Human Kinetics.
Kassing, J.W., Billings, A. C., Brown, R. S., Halone, K. K., Harrison, K., Krizek, B., Mean, L., &
Turman, P. (2004). Communication in the community of sport: The process of enacting,
(re)producing, consuming, and organizing sport. Annals of the International
Communication Association, 28(1), 373-409.
Kaye, C. (2002). Experiential learning and its’ critics: Preserving the role of experience in
management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
1(2), 137-149.
Kembler, D., Ha, T., Lam, B., Lee, A., NG, S., Yan, L., & Yum, J. (1997). The diverse role of
the critical friend in supporting educational action research projects. Educational Action
Research, 5(3), 463-481.

232
Kemmis, S., Mctaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2017). Critical theory and participatory action research.
In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The sage handbook of action research ( 3rd ed., pp. 453-464).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kemp, T. (2005). Psychology’s unique contribution to solution-focused coaching: exploring
clients’ past to inform their present and design their future. In M. Cavanagh, A. Grant,
and T. Kemp (Eds), Evidenced based coaching: Theory, Research and Practice from the
Behavioural Sciences (pp. 37-48). Bowen Hills, Qld: Australian Academic Press.
Kenrick, D., Griskevicius, V., Neuber, S., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of
needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5(3), 292-314.
Kerr, G., & Stirling, A. (2017). Issues of maltreatment in high performance athlete development:
Mental toughness as a threat to athlete welfare. In J. Baker (Ed.), The handbook of talent
identification and development in sport (pp. 409-421). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor
and Francis.
Kerr, G. A., & Stirling, A. E. (2012). Parents’ reflections on their child's experiences of
emotionally abusive coaching practices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24(2),
191–206.
Kidman, L. (2001). Developing decision makers: An empowerment approach to coaching.
Christchurch, NZ: Innovative Communications.
Kidman, L. (2005). Athlete-centred coaching: Developing inspired and inspiring people. IPC
Print Resources.
Kidman, L., & Hanrahan, S. J. (2010). The coaching process: A practical guide to becoming an
effective sports coach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Kidman, L., & Lombardo, B. (2010). Athlete-centered coaching: Developing decision makers
(2nd Edition). Worcester: Innovative Print Communications Ltd.
Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the
teachings of plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.
Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson and Company.

233
Knock, N.F., Jr., McQueen, R.J., & Scott, J.L. (1997). Can action research be made more
rigorous in a positivist sense? The contribution of an iterative approach. Journal of
Systems and Information Technology, 1(1), 1-24.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The
modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a
changing society (pp. 232-255). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (2000). Facilitator’s guide to learning. Boston: Hay/McBer.
Kolb, D. A. (2005). Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1. Boston, MA: Hay Group.
Kolb, D., & Yeganeh, B. (2011). Experiential learning mastering the art of learning from
experience. In K. Elsbach & C. Kayes (Eds.), Contemporary organizational
behaviour in action (1st ed., pp. 1–12). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Koltko-Rivera, M. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarch of needs:
Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of
General Psychology, 10(4), 302-317.
Kowal, S., & O’Connell, D. C. (2004). The transcription of conversations. In U. Flick, E. von
Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.) A companion to qualitative research (pp. 248-252).
London: Sage.
Kozub, S. A., & Button, C. J. (2000). The influence of a competitive outcome on perceptions
of cohesion in rugby and swimming teams. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 31(1), 82-95.
Krippner, S. (2001). Research methodology in humanistic psychology in light of postmodernity.
In K. Schneider, J. Bugental & J. Pierson (Eds.) The handbook of humanistic psychology
(pp. 289-304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Leclerc, G., Lefrancois, R., Dubé, M., Hébert, R., & Gualin, P. (1998). The self-actualization
concept: A content validation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(1), 69–84.
Lefebvre, J., Evans, M., Turnnidge, J., Gainforth, H., & Côté, J. (2016). Describing and
classifying coach development programs: A synthesis of empirical research and applied
practice. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 11(6), 887-899.
Lemyre, F., Trudel, P., & Durand-bush, N. (2007). How youth-sport coaches learn to coach. The
Sport Psychologist, 21, 191–209.
234
Lerner, R. M., & Castellino, D. R. (2002). Contemporary developmental theory and
adolescence: Developmental systems and applied developmental science. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 31(6), 122-135.
Lerner, R., Rothbaum, F., Boulos, S. & Castellino, D. (2002). Developmental systems
perspective on parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Biology and
ecology of parenting (Vol.2, pp. 315-344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Lewis, T., & Osborn, C. (2004). Solution-focused counseling and motivational interviewing: A
consideration of confluence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(1), 38–48.
Light, R. & Harvey, S. (2015). Positive pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport, Education and
Society, 22(2), 271-287.
Love, J. G. (1995). The hermeneutics of transcript analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1–4.
Lipchik, E. (2002). Beyond technique in solution focused therapy. London: The Guilford Press.
Lipchik, E. (2014). The development of my personal solution-focused working model: From
1979 and continuing. International Journal of Solution-Focused Practice, 2(2), 63-73.
Lyons, A. (1996). Humanistic models of social action and responsibility. The Humanistic
Psychologist, 24(3), 301–306.
Lyons, A. (2001). Humanistic psychology and social action. In K. Schneider, J. Bugental and
J. Pierson (Eds.) The handbook of humanistic psychology (pp. 625-634). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Madonald, A. (2011). Solution-focused therapy: Theory, research & practice. London: Sage.
MacDonald, D. J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2010). Original research: The impact of informal
coach training on the personal development of youth sport athletes. International Journal
of Sports Science and Coaching, 5(3), 363–372.
Magdalenski, T. (2009). Sport, technology and the body. The nature of performance. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Magnusen, M. (2010). Differences in strength and conditioning, coach self-perception of.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(6), 1440–1450.
Maksimović, J. (2010). Historical development of action research in social sciences. Philosophy,
Sociology, Psychology and History, 9(1), 119-124.
Malette, L., & Feltz, D.L., (2000). The effect of a coaching education program on coaching
235
 efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 410-417.
Mallett, C. J., Trudel, P., Lyle, J., & Rynne, S. B. (2009). Formal vs. informal coach
education. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(3), 325–364.
Mann, B., Grana, W., Indelicato, P., O’Neil, D., & George, S. (2008). A survey of sports
medicine physicians regarding psychological issues in patient athletes. American Journal
of Sports Medicine, 35(12), 2140-2147.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (2011) Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 25-34.
Marrow, S. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Some basic proposition of a growth and self-actualization psychology. In
A. Combs, E. Kelley, & C. Rogers (Eds.), Perceiving, behaving, becoming. A new focus
for education (pp. 34–49). Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Mattingly, C., Lutkehaus, N., & Throop, C. (2008). Bruner’s search for meaning: a conversation
between psychology and anthropology. Ethos, 36(1), 1-28.
Maznevski, M., Gomes, C., Distefano, J., Noorderhaven, N., & Wu, P. (2002). Cultural
dimensions at the individual level of analysis. Cross Cultural Management, 2(3), 275-
295.
McCallister, S., Blinde, E. M., & Weiss, W. M. (2000). Teaching values and implementing
philosophies: Dilemmas of the youth sport coach. Physical Educator, 57(1), 35–46.
McCarthy, M., Sullivan, P., & Wright, P. (2006). Culture, personal experience and agency.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 421-439.
McCullick, B., Schempp, P., Mason, I., Foo, C., Vickers, B., & Connolly, G. (2009). A scrutiny
of the coaching education program scholarship since 1995. Quest, 61(3), 322–335.
McMorris, T., & Hale, T. (2006). Coaching science: Theory into practice. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
236
McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2009). You and your action research project (3rd edition). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Mean, L. & Halone, K. (2010). Sport, language and culture: Issues and intersections. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 29(3), 253-260.
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-
emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkor and C. Teddlie (Eds.) Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Mertens, D. M. (2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach? Mixed Methods
Research, 6(4), 255–257.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Moen, F., & Federici, R. (2013). Coaches’ coaching competence in relation to athletes’ perceived
progress in elite sport. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(1), 240–252.
Moen, F., & Kvalsund, R. (2013). Subjective beliefs among sport coaches about communication
during coach-athlete conversations. Athletic Insight, 5(3), 229-249.
Moon, J. (2004). A handbook of reflection and experiential learning: theory and practice
London: Kogan Page.
Moss, D. (2001). The roots and genealogy of humanistic psychology. In K. Schneider, J.
Bugental & J. Pierson (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology (pp. 5-20).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mouchet, A., Harvey, S., & Light, R. (2014). A study on in-match rugby coaches’
communications with players: a holistic approach. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 19(3), 320–336.
Mudd, J. E. (2000). Solution-Focused therapy and communication skills training: An integrated
approach to couples’ therapy (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Blacksburg, VI:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d78/7b0d11328d1cf2d4973a1d7fe84c2cfdaa1e.pdf
Nash, C. S., & Sproule, J. (2009). Career development of expert coaches. International Journal
of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(1), 121–138.

237
Nelson, L., Cushion, C., Potrac, P., & Groom, R. (2014). Carl Rogers, learning and educational
practice: critical considerations and applications in sport coaching. Sport, Education and
Society, 19(5), 513-531.
Neuman, W. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd
Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nicolas, M., Gaudreau, P., & Franche, V. (2011). Perception of coaching behaviours, coping, and
achievement in a sport competition. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(3), 460-
468.
Nelson, L. J., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). Reflection in coach education: The case of the national
governing body coaching certificate. The Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 174.
Nelson, L. J., Cushion, C. J., & Potrac, P. (2006). Formal, nonformal and informal coach
learning: A Holistic conceptualisation. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 1(3), 247–259.
Nelson, L. J., Cushion, C. J., Potrac, P., & Groom, R. (2014). Carl Rogers, learning and
educational practice: critical considerations and applications in sports coaching. Sport,
Education and Society, 19(5), 513–531.
Nizam, M., Fauzee, M., Jamalis, M., Geok, S., & Din, A. (2009). Coaching leadership styles and
athlete satisfactions among Malaysian University basketball team. Research Journal of
International Studies, 9, 4-11.
North, J. (2010). Using “Coach Developers” to facilitate coach learning and development:
qualitative evidence from the UK. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching,
5(2), 239–256.
O’Broin, A. & Palmer, S. (2010). Exploring key aspects in the formation of coaching
relationships: Initial indicators from the perspective of the coachee and the coach.
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(2), 124-143.
O’Connell, B. & Palmer, S. (2014). Solution-focused coaching. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow
(Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology (pp. 298-312). New York, NY: Routledge.
O’Hanlon, W. (1998). Possibility therapy: An inclusive, collaborative, solution-based model of
psychotherapy. In M. Hoyt (Ed.) The handbook of constructive therapies: Innovative
approaches from leading practitioners (pp. 137-158). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Inc, Publishers.
238
Olcay, I. (1998). Individualism and collectivism in a model and scale of balanced differentiation
and integration. The Journal of Psychology, 132(1), 95-105.
Onyett, S. (2009). Working appreciatively to improve services for children and families. Clinical
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 14(4), 495–507.
Palmer, S. (2011). Revisiting the P in the PRACTICE coaching model. The Coaching
Psychologist, 7(2), 156-158.
Parker, P. (2009). Transforming teaching and learning in higher education: An interview with
Parker J. Palmer. Spirituality in Higher Education Newsletter, 5(2), 1-9.)
Pereira Dias, G., Palmer, S., EgidioNardi, A. (2017). Integrating positive psychology and the
solution-focused approach with cognitive-behavioural coaching: the integrative
cognitive-behavioural coaching model. European Journal of Applied Positive
Psychology, 1(3), 1-8.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research
paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 126–
136.
Potrac, P., & Jones, R. (2009). Power, conflict, and cooperation: Toward a micropolitics of
coaching. Quest, 61(2), 223-236.
Potrac, P. & Jones, R. L. (2011) Power in coaching. In R. L. Jones, P. Potrac, C. Cushion & L. T.
Ronglan (Eds) The sociology of sports coaching (p.135-150). London: Routledge.
Prilleltensky, I. (1996). Human moral and political values for an emancipatory psychology. The
Humanistic Psychologist, 24, 307-324.
Pringle, R. (2007). Social theory for coaches: A Foucauldian reading of one athlete’s poor
performance. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 2(4), 385-393.
Purdy, L., Jones, R., & Cassidy, T. (2009). Negotiation and capital: Athletes’ use of power in an
elite men’s rowing program. Sport, Education and Society, 14(3), 321-338.
Rallis, S. & Rossman, G. (2009). Ethics and trustworthiness. In J. Heighman and R. Croker
(Eds.), Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics. A Practical Introduction (pp. 263-
287). New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
Reade, I., Rodgers, W., & Spriggs, K. (2008). New ideas for high performance coaches: A case
study of knowledge transfer in sport science. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 3(3), 335–354.
239
Reason, P. (1998). A participatory world. Resurgence, 168, 42-44. Retrieved on July 30, 2016,
http://www.peterreason.eu/Papers/Participatory_worldview.pdf
Rees, T. I. M., & Freeman, P. (2009). Social support moderates the relationship between stressors
and task performance through self-efficacy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
28(2), 244.
Ricoeur, P. (1981). What is a text? Explanation and understanding. Hermeneutics and the
Human Sciences: essays on language, action and interpretation (pp. 145- 164).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, S. (2010). What can coach education programmes learn from the teachers?
model-based instruction in a UK national governing body award course. International
Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 5(1), 109–116.
Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relations, as developed in
the client centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (pp. 184-
256). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Rogers, C. R. (1995). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Rodgers, W., Reade, I., & Hall, C. (2007). Factors that influence coaches’ use of sound coaching
practices. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2(2), 155–170.
Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal
communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 33–44.
Rylander, P. (2015). Coaches’ bases of power: Developing some initial knowledge of athletes’
compliance with coaches in team sports, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27(1),
110-121.
Rynne, S. B., Mallett, C., & Tinning, R. (2006). High performance sport coaching:
Institutes of sport as sites for learning. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 1(3), 223–234.
Sandelowski, S. (2004). Using qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1366-
1386.
Schmuck, P., Kasser, T. I. M., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic goals: their structure
and relationship to well-being in German and U.S. college students. Social Indicators
Research, 50, 225–241.
240
Schneider, B. (2001). Constructing knowledge in an organization: The role of interview notes.
Management Communication Quarterly, 15(2), 227-255.
Sharma, G. & Kolb, D. (2009). The learning flexibility index: Assessing contextual flexibility in
learning style. In S. Rayner & E. Cools (Eds.), Style differences in cognition, learning and
management: Theory, research and practice (pp.78-95). London: Routledge.
Shaw, E., Howard, J., West, D., Crabtree, B., Nease, D., Tutt, B., & Nutting, P. (2012). The role
of the champion in primary care change efforts: From the state networks of Colorado
ambulatory practices and partners. The Journal of the American Board of Family
Medicine, 25(5), 676-685l
Sheridan, M. (2006). Assessing self-awareness of inexperienced and experienced athletic
coaches: A mixed method approach (unpublished doctoral thesis). Capella University,
Minneapolis, MI.
Sherry, E. & Shilbury, D. (2007). Impact of social expectations on ethical governance of sport
organisations. Annals of Leisure Research, 10(3-4), 413-430.
Showkeir, J. D., & Showkeir, M. S. (2008). Authentic conversations: Moving from manipulation
to truth and commitment. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Simon, I. (1983). A humanistic approach to sports. Humanist, 43(4), 25-32.
Smith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: misunderstandings, opportunities and
recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 10(1), 137-149.
Smith, M., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). An investigation of the in-game behaviours of
professional, top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(4), 355–
66.
Smith, M. L. (1997). Mixing and matching: Methods and models. New Directions for Evaluation,
2(74), 1008–1009.
Smith, J. & Heshusius, L. (1985). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-
qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, Il. March 31-April 4.
Smith, R., Smoll, F., & Cumming, S. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate intervention for
coaches on young athletes’ sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 29, 39-59.
241
Smith, R., Smoll, F., & Hunt, E. (1997). A system for the behavioural assessment of athletic
coaches. Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and
Recreation, 48(2), 401-407.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2006). Enhancing coach-athlete relationships: Cognitive-
behavioural principles and procedures. In J. Dosil (Ed.), The sport psychologist’s
handbook. (pp.19-37). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Spalding, N.J. and Phillips, T., 2007. Exploring the use of vignettes: from validity to trust-
worthiness. Qualitative Health Research, 17(7), 954–962.
Stebbins, M., Valenzuela, J. & Coget, J. (2009). Long-term insider action research: Three
decades of work at Kaiser Permanente. In R. Woodman, W. Pasmore & A. Shani (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 17, pp. 37-75). Bingley, U.K:
JAI Press.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London:
Heineman.
Sigman, M. (2016). Your words may predict your future mental health [Video file]. Retrieved
from: https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_your_words_may_predict_your_future_ment
al_health?language=en
Stirling, A. E. (2009). Definition and constituents of maltreatment in sport: establishing a
conceptual framework for research practitioners. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
43(14), 1091–1099.
Stirling, A. E. (2013). Understanding the use of emotionally abusive coaching practices.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 8(4), 625-640.
Stirling, A. (2013b). Applying Kolb’s theory of experiential learning to coach education. Journal
of Coaching Education, 6(2), 103-122.
Stirling, A. E., Bridges, E. J., Cruz, E. L., & Mountjoy, M. L. (2011). Canadian academy of sport
and exercise medicine position paper: Abuse, harassment, and bullying in sport. Clinical
Journal of Sport Medicine, 21(5), 385-391.
Stirling, A. E. & Kerr, G. A. (2009). Abused athletes’ perceptions of the coach-athlete
relationship. Sport in Society, 12(2), 227-239.
Stober, D. (2006). Coaching from the humanistic perspective. In D. Stober & A. Grant
(Eds.), Evidence based coaching handbook: Putting best practices to work for
242
 your clients (pp. 17–50). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Stringer, E. (2014). Action Research (4th ed.). Los Angles, California: Sage Publications.
Strate, L. (2003). Something from nothing: Seeking a sense of self. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics, 60(1), 4-21.
Sullivan, P., & Feltz, L. (2003). The preliminary development of the scale for effective
communication in team sports (SECTS). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(8),
1693–1715.
Summit, P., & Jenkins, S. (2013). Sum it up. New York, NY: Crown Archetype.
Taylor, E. & Martin, F. (2001). Humanistic psychology at the crossroads. In K. Schneider, J.
Bugental and J. Pierson (Eds.) The handbook of humanistic psychology (pp. 21-28).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Takaya, K. (2008). Jerome Bruner’s theory of education: From early Bruner to later Bruner.
Interchange, 39(1), 1-19.
Taylor, B., & Garratt, D. (2010). The professionalization of sports coaching: Relations of power,
resistance and compliance. Sport, Education and Society, 15(1), 121-139.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioural sciences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teo, T. (2015). Theoretical psychology: A critical-philosophical outline of core issues. In I.
Parker (Ed), Handbook of critical psychology (pp. 117-126). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 3, 68-70.
Tippet, K. (2018). When the market is our only language. On Being With Krista Tippett,
November 15, https://onbeing.org/programs/anand-giridharadas-whitney-kimball-coe-the-
call-to-community-in-a-changed-world-nov2017/. Accessed, March 1, 2019.
Tomori, C. & Bavelas, J. (2007). Using microanalysis of communication to compare and client-
centered therapies. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 18(3), 25–43.
Torrance, H. (2012). Triangulation, respondent validation, and democratic participation in mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 111–113.
Trepper, T., McCollum, E., De Jong, P., Korman, H., Gingerich, W. & Franklin, C. (2010).
Solution focused therapy treatment manual for working with individuals. Retrieved from:
243
 https://www.andrews.edu/sed/gpc/faculty-research/coffen-
research/trepper_2010_solution.pdf
Tripp. D. (2005). A methodological introduction. Retrieved, August 2, 2016, from:
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ep/v31n3/en_a09v31n3.pdf
Trudel, P., Gilbert, W., & Werthner, P. (2010). Coach education effectiveness. In J. Lyle
& C. Cushion (Eds.) Sports coaching: Professionalism and practice (pp. 135-152).
London: Elsevier.
Tsoukas, H. (2005). Afterword: Why language matters in the analysis of organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 96-104.
Turkle, S. (2012). The flight from conversation. The New York Times, p. 22.
Ulrich, W. (2003). Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic
discourse. Journal of Operational Research, 54, 325–342.
van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249-
283.
Vargas-Tonsing, T. M. (2007). Coaches’ preferences for continuing coaching education.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2(1), 25–35.
Vella, S., Oades, L. G., & Crowe, T. P. (2010). Review: The application of coach leadership
models to coaching practice: Current state and future directions. International Journal of
Sports Science and Coaching, 5(3), 425–434.
Venter, H. (2016). Self-transcendence: Maslow’s answer to cultural closeness. Journal of
Innovation Management, 4, 3-7.
Vidal, C. (2008). Wat is een wereldbeeld? (What is a worldview?). In H. Van Belle & J. Van der
Veken, (Eds.) Nieuwheid denken. De wetenschappen en het creatieve aspect van de
werkelijkheid (pp.71-85). Acco, Leuven.
Retrieved August 5, 2016 from:
http://cogprints.org/6094/2/Vidal_2008-what-is-a- worldview.pdf
Vierimaa, M., Erickson, K., Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2012). Positive youth development: A
measurement framework for sport. International Journal of Sport Science & Coaching,
7(3), 601-614.
Vincent, W., & Weir, J. (1999). Statistics in kinesiology. Human Kinetics.
Visser, C. F. (2012). How the solution-focusedness of coaches is related to their thriving at
244
 work. Retrieved from www.solutionfocusedchange.com
Wakefield, M. (2006). New views on leadership coaching. Journal of Quality & Participation,
(Summer), 9–12.
Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2011). Critical, emancipatory, and pluralistic research for
education: A review of critical systems theory. Journal of Thought, (Fall/Winter 2011),
63–80.
Weiss, M. R., & Williams, L. (2004). The why of youth sport involvement: A developmental
perspective on motivational processes: A lifespan perspective. Developmental sport and
exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp.223-268). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2006). Understanding how coaches learn to coach. The Sport
Psychologist, 20, 198–212.
Wertz, F. (2001) Humanistic psychology and the qualitative research tradition. In K.
Schneider, J. Bugental & J. Pierson (Eds.) The handbook of humanistic psychology
(pp. 231-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wetherell, M. (2015). Discursive psychology: Key tenets, some splits and two examples. In I.
Parker (Ed), Handbook of critical psychology (pp. 315-324). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative
competence. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 185–199.
Wiese-Bjornstal, D.M. (2010). Psychology and socioculture affect injury risk, response, and
recovery in high-intensity athletes: a consensus statement. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports, 20(2), 103-111.
Yandall, M. (2014). The definition of insanity: Dialectically communicating student athlete
identity and structure in collegiate sport culture (unpublished Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3642045)
Yanow, D. (2014). Interpretive analysis and comparative research. In I. Engeli & C. Rothmayr
(Eds.) Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges (pp. 131-
159). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillian.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research – Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

245
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and method (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
publications.
Zhang, J., Jensen, B. E., & Mann, B. L. (1997). Modification and revision of the leadership scale
for sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 105-122.

246
 APPENDIX

Appendix A: Coach Demographic Questionnaire

Gender: Male Female Other

What sport(s) do you coach?:

___________________________________________________________

What is your current coaching qualification? ____________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

How many years have you been coaching (total)? _______

How many years have you been coaching athletes at an elite level? ________

Have you ever coached a team to a provincial or national championship? Yes No

Please list years:

Are you a former athlete?

Yes No

If so, what sport(s) did you compete in?

What is the highest sport level you achieved as an athlete?

Regional Provincial Junior National National International

Thank-you.

247
 Appendix B: Athlete Demographic Questionnaire

Gender: Male Female Other

Date of birth: ____________

Interuniversity Sport Team: ____________________________________________

Name of Coach: _______________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

How many years have you been on this Interuniversity team?:

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

What year university are you in? _______

What is your grade point average? ______

On a scale of 10 to 0, 10 being high (positive), how has being part of this team met your

expectations? _____

Thank-you.

248
 Appendix C: Coach Informed Letter of Consent

Dear ……..

This letter is an invitation to participate, with me, in a season long action-research study. The
purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a humanistic coaching intervention, known as
solution-focused coaching on the self-actualizing processes of coaches and athletes. However, as
an action-research project, it is important that goals and objectives, even research questions for
this project are established collaboratively and that the participants, you, your coaching staff and
athletes are considered co-researchers.

I will meet with you and your staff prior to the season to establish goals and expectations, as well
as deliver a one-and-a-half-day training work-shop. Over the course of the season, I hope to audio
and/or video record a number of games and practices. For these occasions you will be asked to
wear a wireless microphone. The purpose of these recordings is to help us determine how the
solution-focused coaching intervention is adopted. I will also be observing a number of games
and practices and this involves taking notes of my observations. Additionally, I have what is
known as a critical friend, to help me with my learning and observations. With your permission, I
will ask my friend (who is also a professional solution-focused coach) to attend our training
sessions and observe some games and practices. My hope is that we can work collaboratively
over the season to determine what works best for you and your team, and our collective learning
processes. I will provide whatever support and feedback you determine to be necessary.

It is important for you to know what types of data I aiming to collect for this project. For
example: audio/video recordings of some games and practices and perhaps even some our
conversations, content from email exchanges, feedback provided by you, your staff and athletes,
materials that we produce during our training sessions or meetings, journals and field notes.
Please note that at all of these are negotiable, and at any point, you are free to suggest that I not
use something as part of the research process. Because action research is based on cycles of
action and reflection, over the course of the season, we will collectively decide at a number of
points, what counts as evidence, and what does not.

I will also meet with the athletes at the beginning of season and again at the end of season –
perhaps more often, depending on what we decide together is necessary. The conversations
during these meetings will be audio and/or video recorded. I am also inviting my critical friend to
observe these meetings.

Voluntary Participation
Please be assured that your participation in this project is completely voluntary. You may
choose to withdraw at any time without penalty, however following the research process at
249
the end of April 2017 withdrawal will no longer be possible. You also have the right not to
answer any questions you choose.
Confidentiality
With your permission our conversations, as well as a select number of games and practices
will be digitally- recorded as to not miss any information. Please be assured that the
information you provide will be kept confidential at all times. Although every effort will be
made to protect all identities of participants through the use of a pseudonyms and the
elimination of any identifiable information, because there are a select number of Varsity
teams, your anonymity cannot be assured. Only the supervisor, Prof. Gretchen Kerr, and the
student researcher will have access to the data. However, the researcher will offer you the
opportunity to respond to and suggest revisions of any and all material before it is published.
Benefits
The researcher is an accredited solution-focused trainer and coach, who has done previous
work with varsity and professional athletes; therefore, the opportunity to improve and
enhance your coaching communication skills may have both short and long-term benefits
both personally and for the success of your team (personally and with regards to
performance).
Dissemination of Results
Once results have been written up you will receive an abbreviated report of the research
findings without any identification of individuals. The research findings will be included
in a final research doctoral thesis, as well as, research publications and conference
publications, again, without identification of individuals or the specific team involved.
Risks
There are very few risks associated with this project. However, the learning process, changing
your communication style (behaviours) may not always be simple and even be disruptive to a
certain extent – which is why we are beginning the project prior to the season, and I will
provide on-going support as needed.
As mentioned, although every effort to provide anonymity will be made, there is risk that
your anonymity cannot be assured. This means as well, that the identity of the athletes as
a team may difficult to protect. However, under no circumstance will any identifying
information be included in any publication that might identify an athlete personally.
Thank you in advance for your participation. If you have any questions or concerns,
please do not hesitate to contact one of the researchers below. In addition, you may
contact the Research Oversight and Compliance Office - Human Research Ethics
Program at ethics.review@utoronto.ca or 416-946-3273, at any time if you have
questions about your rights as participants.
Finally, the research study you are participating in may be reviewed for quality
assurance to make sure that the required laws and guidelines are followed. If chosen, (a)
representative(s) of the Human Research Ethics Program (HREP) may access study-
related data and/or consent materials as part of the review. All information accessed by
the HREP will be upheld to the same level of confidentiality that has been stated by the
research team.
250
Sincerely,

_______________________
Elaine Cook, M.Sc.
PhD Candidate (Primary Researcher)
FKPE, University of Toronto
______________________________
Gretchen Kerr, Ph.D.
Thesis Supervisor
FKPE, University of Toronto
(416) 978-6190

251
 Appendix D: Athlete Informed Letter of Consent

Dear Athlete

I have been invited to join your team as an embedded sport psychology consultant and as a result,
I have asked your coach to have your team join me on a research journey. The purpose of this
study is to examine the effects of a humanistic coaching intervention, known as solution-focused
coaching, on the self-actualizing processes of coaches and athletes. In particular, I am looking at
language and communication skills of coaches and coaching staff, and the impact that it has on
athletes’ development. This is an action research study, which means the participants, you, your
coaches and colleagues are all considered co-researchers.

What is involved?
If you decide to participate in the study we will meet as a group at least once prior to the season,
perhaps during the season and certainly, again at the end of season. During our meetings we will
have conversations about your expectations, experiences and best hopes as people and athletes, as
well as, your perceptions of coaching. These meetings may be audio and/or video recorded. Over
the course of the season, I will be also audio and/or video recording a number of practices and
games. Your coach will be asked to wear a wireless microphone for recording purposes. I will
also be observing some games and practices. This means that you may be recorded as well. I may
have a colleague, who is also a solution-focused coach, join and observe our meetings.

Voluntary Participation
Please be assured that your participation in this project is completely voluntary. You may choose
to withdraw at any time, without penalty.

Confidentiality
Please be assured that the survey information you provide will be kept confidential at all times.
Only the researchers will have access to the survey data. Although every effort will be made to
protect all identities of participants through the use of a pseudonyms and the elimination of any
identifiable information, because there are a select number of Interuniversity teams, and the type
of sport will be identified in the research, it may be possible that the team could be identified.
However, it will not be possible to identify any particular athlete. Only the supervisor, Prof.
Gretchen Kerr, and the student researcher will have access to the data. The researcher will offer
you the opportunity to respond to, and suggest revisions of any and all material before it is
published.

Benefits
The benefits of participating in such a project are varied. You will have the opportunity to
contribute to and shape what I hope is an important contribution to coach development. It is also
my intention that your participation will help to enhance your personal development as well as,
the success and development of the team.

252
Risks
There are very few risks associated with this project, except as mentioned, there is a risk that the
anonymity of the team cannot be assured. This means that the identity of the athletes as a team
may difficult to protect. However, under no circumstance will any identifying information be
included in any publication that might identify an athlete personally.

Thank you in advance for your participation. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not
hesitate to contact one of the researchers below.

Sincerely,

_______________________ ______________________________
Elaine Cook, M.Sc. Gretchen Kerr, Ph.D.
PhD Candidate (Primary Researcher) Thesis Supervisor
FKPE, University of Toronto FKPE, University of Toronto
(416) 978-6190

253
 Appendix E: Critical Friend Informed Letter of Consent

Dear CF

This letter is a formal invitation to participate, with me, in a season long action-research study
with the Interuniversity Women’s Hockey team. The purpose of this study is to examine the
effects of a humanistic coaching intervention, known as solution-focused coaching on the self-
actualizing processes of coaches and athletes. However, as an action-research project, it is
important that goals and objectives, even research questions for this project are established
collaboratively and that the participants, including you, the coaching staff and athletes are
considered co-researchers.

Your role as a critical friend is to hold up a mirror to my work and learning. I will also ask you
participate in team trainings and meetings, keep detailed notes that you are willing to share with
me and have included as research data, attend some games and practices as an observer, have
periodic meetings with me to provide feedback as well as, provide moral support. Some of our
conversations may audio and/or video recorded. All of work with the team must be considered
strictly confidential.

It is important for you to know what types of data I aiming to collect for this project. For
example: audio/video recordings of some games and practices and perhaps even some our
conversations, content from email exchanges, feedback provided by you, materials that we
produce during our training sessions or meetings, journals and field notes. Please note that at all
of these are negotiable, and at any point, you are free to suggest that I not use something as part
of the research process. Because action research is based on cycles of action and reflection, over
the course of the season, we will collectively decide at a number of points, what counts as
evidence, and what does not.

Voluntary Participation
Please be assured that your participation in this project is completely voluntary. You may choose
to withdraw at any time, without penalty, and you have the right not to answer any questions you
choose.

Confidentiality
With your permission our conversations, as well as a select number of games and practices will
be digitally-recorded as to not miss any information. Please be assured that the information you
provide will also be kept confidential at all times. Only the supervisor, Prof. Gretchen Kerr, and
the student researcher will have access to the data. However, you will have the opportunity to
respond to and suggest revisions of any and all material at many points during the season,
including before any publication

Benefits
The benefits of participating in such a research project, are of course subjective, but may include:
the opportunity to work with exceptional coaches and athletes in a highly competitive
environment, and the opportunity to contribute to and shape what I hope is formative research for
coach and athlete development.
254
Risks
There are very few risks associated with this project for you.

Thank you in advance for your participation. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not
hesitate to contact one of the researchers below.

Sincerely,

_______________________ ______________________________
Elaine Cook, M.Sc. Gretchen Kerr, Ph.D.
PhD Candidate (Primary Researcher) Thesis Supervisor
FKPE, University of Toronto FKPE, University of Toronto
(416) 978-6190

255
 Appendix F: Sample List of Summer Learning Session

SF Coaching elements

Summer learning 2017

1. Lead with Questions

• A small shift from telling to asking. When we ask questions, we get the athletes to
do the work, we are helping to develop autonomy, competence and confidence.
There are, of course, times, when as a coach, you need to be directive – when you
use these times wisely, they become more effective
2. Reframing
• This is a critical skill. With this skill we can elevate affect, enhance reflection
skills, agency, confidence and competence. We learn to focus what we want
instead of the current problem, what we are going to do differently, and what
difference that will make, how we will do more – we learn to behaviouralize
change
3. Feedback
• Perhaps one of the most impactful skills a coach can develop.
4. Video Analysis – A new outcome
• What are they doing well? How will they do more of that? What else would they
like to improve?
5. Scaling
• Measuring improvements, individually and collectively
6. Relationships
• We are social beings, teams depend on collective engagement, wellbeing,
everything we do is about building relationships. We ask questions that embed
relationship building, compassion, perspective taking.

Perspectives:
• Curiosity
• Strength based
• Having positive assumptions
• Encouraging (hopeful)

256
 Appendix G: Sample Solution-Focused Workshop

Workshop Objective

The aim of this workshop is to build solution-building coaching skills into the coaching practice of
team coaches/staff.

Workshop Outline
Day One
9:00 - 9:15 Introduction and Agenda
9:15 - 9:45 Self-Actualization and Context
9:45 – 10:00 Commonality Game
10:00 - 10:30 First Coaching Exercise: Best Hopes and Introductions
10:30 - 10:45 BREAK
10:45 - 11:15 Complementing
11:15 -12:00 Coaching Philosophy
12:00 - 13:00 LUNCH
13:00 - 13:15 Transition Exercise – Word Search
13:15 - 14:45 Facilitation: SF slides
14:45 - 15:15 Goal Setting – Developing Questions
15:15 - 15:30 BREAK
15:30 - 16:30 Coaching Philosophy Conversations
16:30 - 16:45 Wrap up

Day Two
9:00 - 9:15 Warm-up Exercise
9:15 - 9:30 Review/check-in
9:30 - 10:30 Coaching Conversations using cards
10:30 - 10:45 BREAK
10:45 - 11:30 Reflecting Team
11:30 -12:30 Coaching on Implementation/Next Steps

257
 Appendix H: Retreat Agenda

Retreat Agenda: Version 1

OBJECTIVES:
• Build framework for positive culture
o Trust
o Loyalty
o Leader skills
o Sense of shared leadership
• Build rapport between players and staff
• Build individual and collective strengths} Team Cohesiveness/Collective Sense of
Identity
• Build collective vision for the season, or at least the first half of the season} Contracting

KEYWORDS:
• Vulnerability
• Helpful
• Possible
• Authentic
• Courageous

Preparation:
o Two weeks prior to retreat:
o Divide the team into groups of 3 or 4, mix it up
o Assign a meal or aspect of a meal to each group: for example
§ Group 1 does lunch day one
§ Group two does snacks day one
§ Group three dinner day one, Group four dessert
§ Group two does breakfast day two….etc….
o Recipes have to come from websites approved by Carolin, for example
§ http://sweetpeasandsaffron.com/2015/03/19-healthy-one-pot-dinners.html
§ https://minimalistbaker.com/recipe-index/
§ meal plans need to be approved by staff/Katie
§ they need to do the shopping
§ teams not involved in the meal prep do the clean up
o no cell phones at any meals – or team activity
o we need three/four favourite songs from everybody to create team playlist for the
weekend

258
Friday, September 8th-Sunday, September 10th

Arrive around 1:00

Set-up

Team 1 prepares Lunch

While the Team 1 make lunch we can talk about the retreat agenda, rules, outcomes, objectives
and tasks for the weekend
• over the course of the weekend they have to interview every other player on the team,
discover something you didn’t already know about them and keep notes in journal

• First agenda item is to have the athletes get into their groups and record research
conversation – upload to Elaine’s computer

• Journal Making: Athletes will be given a small journal (with paper cover – from dollar
store or Michaels), they are going to collage the cover
• Elaine lead journal cover collaging (1 to 1.5 hours)
o Collage represents their Best Hopes story for themselves and the team
o 3 images/words from the team pile incorporated into their story
• First Journal Entry: Contracting exercise (Write answers on post-it notes that stick to
walls)
§ Break into small groups for a discussion about this – make notes, report
back to large group
§ What needs to happen to make this weekend successful?
§ What are some key words for us to keep in mind, and on track?
§ What are you (each of you) willing to risk to make this weekend
successful?
• Can you write one line in your notebook, that you are willing to be
held accountable to, that represents your commitment

Dinner: Dream Team

While Team 2 is preparing dinner, other athletes set table and have time to do interviews
Table Topics during dinner: table topics is a small box of cards with really interesting questions
on them, designed to generate fun discussions, take turns drawing from the box (I have the table
topics kit)

Snack: Fire pit (Smores)

• Fire pit exercise: Something you might not know about me is……..

Saturday:

Morning parcours: small group competition

Breakfast: Team 1
259
Clean-up

Large group work

“I need” statements} “we need” as small group

This exercise is designed to help the athlete better communicate what they need in order to be
successful, to express themselves confidently, ask for what they need… (improve
communication)
o In their previously assigned groups of four they are going to ask each other what they believe
they will ‘need’ to be successful this year, not just as a team mate – first of all we ask them to
spend a few moments considering privately, make notes, THEN get into groups and share,
beginning with: We need, I need…..

Lunch: Team 4

Communication Improv:
o Two or three different activities

Little presentation on commitment and goal setting

Outside activity:
Beach sculptures with teams

Snack: Team 2

Word Jamming

Dinner: Team 3
Tied together during dinner:
o We all need to be able to sit around one table to make this work
Clean-up

Pictionary or Invictus movie

Fire pit: Snacks: Team 2

Sunday

Morning run/Swim

Breakfast: Team 2
Box Lunch: Team 1

Free time: Journal writing/interviews with each other

o What have you learned about yourself so far?
o What have you learned about your team,260 being part of a team?
 o Other questions

Clean-up

Wrap-up on the Beach (bring journals)

Group exercise:

“One thing I learned about myself this weekend – or - one insight I’ve had is….

“One thing I’ve learned about my teammates (team) this weekend is…..

“One thing I am committed to, and willing to be held accountable to is…..

Team Cheer!

261
 Appendix I: Solution Focus Transcript Elements

SF Transcript Elements

1. Lead with questions

• A small shift from telling to asking. There are times as a coach where you must
be directive, but we use these opportunities wisely
• Be patient, let them think for themselves
2. Reframing
• Focusing on what you want instead of the current problem
3. Key words
• Differently
• Instead
• Doing
• Consistent themes
• Manage
4. Feedback
• Compliments
• Clear
• Specific
• Timely
5. Relationship building
• Where the questions or directions embed relationship, compassion, understanding

Perspectives:
• Curiosity
• Strength based
• Having positive assumptions
• Encouraging (hopeful)

Notes:
At the end of each transcript please provide a few lines/insights about what you thought you did
well, what you’d like to do more of, what is challenging and what difference this makes.

262
 Appendix J: Peer Discussions

1. What are your best hopes for the season?

2. What do you value most about your coach?

3. How does being part of this team help your personal development?

4. What is the biggest challenge you face, and how have you developed the resources to deal

with it?

263
 Appendix K: Measure of Actualizing Potential (MAP)

01. I am a person who values him/herself

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

02. I can express my emotions in any circumstances

with great difficulty with difficulty somewhat easily easily very easily

03. I can predict my reactions

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

04. I believe chat life is good for me.

very little a little somewhat strongly very strongly

05. I adapt to change

with great difficulty with difficulty somewhat easily easily very easily

06. To know my worth, I base myself on what other people think.

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

07. Whatever happens to me, I trust my fedings

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

08. I feel I am reponsible for my life.

hardly at all not very somewhat very extremely

09. For me, each present moment counts

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

10. I know my strengths and limitations

very little a little somewhat very well extremely well

11. I am inclined to follow other people's example

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

12. I listen to my emotions

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

13. I try ro put myself in other people's shoes in order to understand them.
very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

14. I believe that people are basically good.

very little a little somewhat strongly very strongly

15. I can act spontaneously without losing control

with great difficulty with difficulty somewhat264
easily easily very easily
16. I insist on making my own decisions
very little a little somewhat very much enormously

17. T share my joys and sorrows with a confidant.

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

18. Wen thinking about my past life, I suddenly understand why certain
things happened.
very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

19. I give my life meaning by the way I look at things.

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

20. I usually get over major setbacks

with great difficulty with difficulty somewhat easily easily very easily

21. Criticism prevents me from doing what I €eel like doing.

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

22. When I am with other people, I ………..

very rarely, rarely, sometimes, often, very often

23. I am ………..inclined to get involved in important causes

hardly at all, not very, somewhat, very, extremely

24. I succeed……at giving meaning to life.

With great difficulty, with difficulty, somewhat easily, easily, very easily

25. In difficult situations, I ……..remain true to myself.

Very rarely, rarely, sometimes, often, very often

26. I express my opinions…….

With great difficulty, with difficulty, somewhat easily, easily, very easily

27. I can be interested in other people’s problem without thinking about my own…..
with great difficulty, with difficulty, somewhat easily, easily, very easily
01. I am a person who values him/herself
very little a little somewhat very much enormously

02. I can express my emotions in any circumstances

with great difficulty with difficulty somewhat easily easily very easily

03. I can predict my reactions

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

04. I believe chat life is good for me. 265

very little a little somewhat strongly very strongly

05. I adapt to change

with great difficulty with difficulty somewhat easily easily very easily

06. To know my worth, I base myself on what other people think.

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

07. Whatever happens to me, I trust my fedings

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

08. I feel I am reponsible for my life.

hardly at all not very somewhat very extremely

09. For me, each present moment counts

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

10. I know my strengths and limitations

very little a little somewhat very well extremely well

11. I am inclined to follow other people's example

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

12. I listen to my emotions

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

13. I try ro put myself in other people's shoes in order to understand them.
very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

14. I believe that people are basically good.

very little a little somewhat strongly very strongly

15. I can act spontaneously without losing control

with great difficulty with difficulty somewhat easily easily very easily

16. I insist on making my own decisions

very little a little somewhat very much enormously

17. T share my joys and sorrows with a confidant.

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

18. Wen thinking about my past life, I suddenly understand why certain
things happened.
very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

19. I give my life meaning by the way I look at things.

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often266
20. I usually get over major setbacks
with great difficulty with difficulty somewhat easily easily very easily

21. Criticism prevents me from doing what I €eel like doing.

very rarely rarely sometimes often very often

22. When I am with other people, I ………..

very rarely, rarely, sometimes, often, very often

23. I am ………..inclined to get involved in important causes

hardly at all, not very, somewhat, very, extremely

24. I succeed……at giving meaning to life.

With great difficulty, with difficulty, somewhat easily, easily, very easily

25. In difficult situations, I ……..remain true to myself.

Very rarely, rarely, sometimes, often, very often

26. I express my opinions…….

With great difficulty, with difficulty, somewhat easily, easily, very easily

27. I can be interested in other people’s problem without thinking about my own…..
with great difficulty, with difficulty, somewhat easily, easily, very easily

267
 Appendix L: Sample Athlete Interview (1) for AC

1. What skill (or skills - 2 or 3 priority skills) would you like to accomplish above all others?

2. On a scale of 10 to 1, (ten being high), where do you see yourself now (for that specific
skill)?

3. Four weeks from now, where do you think that you will be on the scale?

4. What will you need to do to get there?

5. What is the real challenge here for you?

6. What type of support/assistance would help you achieve your goals?

7. Who is most going to notice your improvement?

8. What difference will your improvement make to your teammates and to the team?

9. What did you find most useful for you about this chat? What is the one big thing that is
worth remembering?

268
 Appendix M: Sample Athlete Interview for (2) AC

1. What have you learned since we last met? What are you most proud of? What else?

2. Looking at your September goals

PRIORITY GOALS…
This is where you currently see yourself on the scale. And this is where you want to be. This is

awesome, impressive, etc.

Each step is huge amount of work….and it won’t happen overnight.

Baby steps….Incremental improvement: getting better by 1% everyday…Imagine your

improvement after 4 weeks by focusing on being 1% better on a daily basis. Imagine how great

our team would be by just getting 1% better everyday for 4 weeks!

I need to know how you are going to go from here to here. Let’s just say that you are going to

be 1% better today than you were yesterday.

What action(s) will you need to be doing here consistently that you’re not already doing here?

What actions will you be doing all the time on a daily basis in practice? What else?

3. What is the real challenge here for you to affect this on a daily basis?

So despite your……, what do you think that you are capable of doing consistently on a daily

basis that will get you from X to X. What else?

4. Who is most going to notice your improvement?

5. What is the one big thing that is worth remembering?

___________________________________________________________________
0 10

269
 Appendix N: Media Discourse Notes

Media Discourse

CNN: Jan 18, 2018

John Amaechi (former NBA Star, psychologist, author)

• Not surprised
• Common discourses in sport – that are precursors to this
o Lack of vigilance of coaches
o Lack of skill of coaches
o Lack of ability of orgs to take real responsibility about the duty of care of young
people
• Makes this inevitable
• How many people saw this happening,
• So when an athlete raises a concern and that concern is ignored, regardless of policy and
procedures } the message becomes, don’t bother bringing it up
• It isolates the athlete
• Organizations (culture) have purposeful amnesia (willful blindness)
• Cultural litter metaphor } now we need an expert, I can’t do this on my own
• Why isn’t the world outraged about this: at some point you just have to be honest and say,
“Girls don’t count, right? It’s not what people say, it’s what people do. Simpliest answer
is, that it just doesn’t matter enough to us that these young people, girls, were so deeply
compromised and harmed”
• According to Coakley, it’s more important to protect the GSM!!

Athletes }Larry Nassar

Kylie Stephens

• You should tell someone } then disregarded

Aly Raisman: gold medalist 2012 london Olympic games

• Position of authority, endorsed by national governing body, USOC

• He was part of the child protection policy team (“STATE OF THE ART”)

• Reported and told she was misinterpreting his actions

270
Carrie Hogan

The answer to that question lies in the failure of not one, but three major institutions, to stop him:

Michigan State University, the United States Gymnastics Association and the United States

Olympic Committee. If Michigan State University, USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic

Committee had paid attention to any of the red flags in Larry Nassar's behavior, I never would

have met him, I never would have been treated by him, I never would have been abused by him.

Dr. Nassar was never a doctor. He was in fact, and forever shall ever be, a child molester, a

monster of a human being. End of story."

Emma Ann Miller

One 15-year-old victim said Michigan State was still billing her for medical appointments with

Nassar, during which she says she was sexually abused

McKayla Maroney (gold medalist)

• Ignored red flags

• Organizations enable abuse

https://247sports.com/college/south-carolina/Article/South-Carolina-Gamecocks-head-
coach-Frank-Martin-has-a-message-for-parents-115584072

Frank Martin:South Carolina Head Coach (animated)

You know what I tell my two boys when they come ask me? I say, ‘Why are you asking me? I

didn’t run your practice, go talk to your coach. Don’t talk to me about your coach, because if you

are you’re not playing basketball. If you don’t understand why you didn't play better, go talk to

your coach. I’m not your coach, I’m your dad. If somebody disrespects you then I’m here. If you

fail, good. Deal with it. I’m going to help you get up. But don’t come talk to me about coaching. I

do this for a living. I'm not going to criticize the guy that is trying to help you.’”

271
I don’t care if people on the bench yell at my kids. I got two boys. If they don’t deal with my

children, my children wouldn’t be on their team. My child acts up or doesn’t do things the way

they are expected to do things and they let it happen, I’m taking my son off the team. I want both

my boys to be challenged.”

https://www.leaguenetwork.com/tough-love-uncoachable-kids-become-unemployable-
adults/

“Uncoachable kids become unemployable adults. Let your kid get used to somebody being tough

on them. That’s life, get over it!” – Patrick Murphy, Alabama Softball 5000 shares!

This quote resonates with many coaches, parents other adults. All coaches at one point have

probably struggled with a child who was simply uncoachable. These were the kids who refused to

take orders, disrespected authority and ignored all the good advice that was offered to them

Parents often worry about how their child’s coach may be too hard on them. Coaches are known

to bark orders, get overly excited, and maybe even humiliate players in front of their teammates.

However, coaches who are tough on their kids are coaches eager to see their athletes improve –

not just for the win but for the child to develop in both life and sports.

aggressive” coach may be missing out on the valuable lessons that will toughen up their child for

life in the the real world – the life they will have long after they leave the field and stop playing

the sport.

Quotes:

Kids today don’t know the difference between instruction and criticism~Larry Brown~

www.basketballforcoaches.com

272
http://kidsinthegame.com/coaches-whiteboard-what-it-really-means-to-be-a-coachable-

athlete/

coaches share what it means to be ‘coachable’

• Accept criticism – without taking it personally!! (Paul O’Connor) Being an extension of

the coach on the field “Good players want to be coached, great players want to be told the

truth”

• Accept criticism : Connor Gandossy (St. Louis Unversity)

• Don’t question with poor body language _ they look coach in the eyes regardless of what

is said and react positively (Tatum Boehnke: Northern Colorado)

• Do what coach says

https://beyondathletes.com/uncoachable-kids-become-unemployable-adults/

The modern athlete has evolved into some incredible specimens, bigger, stronger, faster, but

mentally, overall, our athletes today are softer than previous generations, less respectful, and less

team and more me oriented than ever before. This just reflects our society.

FB posts:

Twitter Posts:

273
 Appendix O: Revised Leadership Scale for Sport (RLSS; for athletes and coaches)

I prefer my coach to (my coach:) (I:)

Democratic Behaviour
Let the athletes share in decision making and policy formation.
Put the suggestions made by the team members into operation.
Let the athletes decide on plays to be used in a competition
Give the athletes freedom to determine the details of conducting a drill.
Get approval from the athletes on important matters before going ahead.
Ask for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters.
Let the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes.
Ask for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific competition.
Encourage the athletes to make suggestions for ways to conduct practices.
See the merits of athletes’ ideas when they differ from the coaches.
Get input form the athletes at daily team meetings.
Let the athletes set their own goals.

Positive Feedback Behaviour.

Congratulate an athlete after a good play.
Give credit when it is due.
Express appreciation when an athlete performs well.
Tell an athlete when the athlete does a particularly good job.
Compliment an athlete for good performance in front of others.
Recognize individual contributions to the success of each competition.
Reward an athlete as long as the athlete tries hard.
Praise the athlete’s good performance after losing a competition.
Encourage an athlete when the athlete makes mistakes.
Pat an athlete after a good performance.
Clap hands when an athlete does well.
Show OK or Thumbs up gesture to athletes.

Situational Consideration Behaviour.

Use alternative methods when the efforts of the athletes are not working well in practice or
competition.
Adapt coaching style to suit the situation.
Coach to the level of the athletes.
Put an athlete into different positions depending on the needs of the situation.
Assign tasks according to each individual’s ability and needs.
Increase complexity and demands if the athletes find the demands are too easy.
Put the appropriate athletes in the lineup.
Alter plans due to unforeseen events.
Clarify goals and the paths to reach the goals for the athletes.
Set goals that are compatible with the athlete’s ability.

274
Social support Behaviour
Stay interested in the personal well-being of the athletes.
Encourage close and informal relationship with the athletes.
Help the athletes with their personal problems.
Remain sensitive to the needs of the athletes.
Perform personal favours for the athletes.
Look out for the personal welfare of the athletes.
Visit with the parents/guardians of the athletes.
Encourage the athletes to confide in the coach.

Teaching and Instruction Behaviour

Use a variety of drills for a practice.
Supervise athletes’ drills closely.
Pay special attention to correcting athletes’ mistakes.
Stress the mastery of greater skills
Make complex things easier to understand and learn.
Clarify training priorities and work on them.
Possess good knowledge of the sport.
Explain to each athlete the techniques and tactics of the sport.
Use objective measurements for evaluation.
Conduct proper progressions in teaching fundamentals.

Autocratic Behaviour
Present ideas forcefully.
Disregard athletes’ fears and dissatisfactions.
Keep aloof from the athletes.
Dislike suggestions and opinions from the athletes.
Prescribe the methods to be followed.
Refuse to compromise on a point.
Plan for the team relatively independent of the athletes.
Fail to explain his/her actions.

Note: 5-point Likert scales are used for each response, using the following duration-related
wording: always (100%), often (75%), occasionally (50%), seldom (25%), and never (0%)

275
 Appendix P: Sample Athlete Interview (3) for AC

1. In game situations, the expected and unexpected occur… in what ways can you, or do

you, control your reactions?

2. Sometimes life gives us challenges that sets us back from our hopes and dreams. How do

you handle these challenges?

3. Being better at what you do is a major goal for you. However, how do you handle

criticism ….in what ways is it helpful, or harmful?

4. In the context of this team how easy, or difficult is it for you to express your opinions?

How are you accomplishing your 2 or 3 priority skills? Where do you see yourself now

(for that specific skill) and where do you see yourself in February?

5. What is the real challenge here for you?

6. From our meeting, what is the one big thing worth remembering?

276
 Appendix Q: Sample Athlete Interview (4) for AC

1. In the context of this team, how easy or difficult is it for you to express your opinions?

Has your ability improved since the beginning of the season?

2. In the context of this team, how easy or difficult is it for you to express your emotions?

Has your ability improved since the beginning of the season?

3. Would you say that your confidence has improved since the beginning of this season? If

so, what has contributed to you becoming more confident?

4. Was your most valuable lesson learned this year?

5. Has your sense of self (your perception of who you are) changed since the beginning of

the season? In what ways?

6. What was the turning point in our season?

7. Reviewing their personal data: What stands out to you most and why? (They have a

choice of answering now or sending me an email with their response).

277
 Appendix R: Month-by-Month Scaling Summary of HC

July (AR Cycle One). In our first month of collaboration and learning I scaled HC’s

progress at a 5 because it was a starting point for me. Although her engagement was high, there

was no actual evidence of change or learning. Enthusiasm is neither learning nor change. At a six

we might have been having conversations about how she was using it in various settings with the

athletes.

August (AR Cycle One: Best Hopes). In our second month I scaled HC’s progress at a 6

because exactly that happened; I witnessed and learned from AC that she was complimenting (a

SF tool) the players and providing positive reinforcement. She was even asking good questions.

At a 7 she would have been using SF language in her conversations with athletes outside of the

gym.

September (AR Cycle Two). As our season began more formally and we entered phase

two of our AR cycle HC moved up to a 6.5. It is important to remember that in SF practice small

change is celebrated because it can yield big results (de Shazer et al., 2007). This month HC

noticed the difference her/our communication was making with the athletes. Again, at a 7, she

would have been using the language in different contexts.

October (AR Cycle Two). Once the season started in earnest, those competing discourses

created a huge challenge for coach, and for me. As a result, her ability to implement SF language

and practice was diminished. There was certainly evidence of her continued learning: her

openness to reframing, a tender moment with an athlete, and her receptivity to SF video analysis;

however, her behaviour did not match her learning. As a result I scaled her success at

implementation at a 4. At a 5, instead of ranting at the athletes after a loss she would have

remained calm and led from behind – even just a little.

278
 November (AR Cycle Two). Despite the fact that this was a rough month with regards to

on-field success for our team, HC’s behaviour showed signs of aligning with the work we were

doing and as a consequence she moved up the scale to a 4.5. AC communicated to me these

positive changes in HC’s behaviour, in particular HC pointed out to the players things they had

done well following a losing game. As hoped for in the previous month, HC was able to remain

calm and ask good questions following a loss. At a 5.5 her behaviour would have been more

consistent and more solution-focused.

December (AR Cycle Two). This month was our low point with the greatest discrepancy

between HC behaviour and learning, resulting in a 2 on the scale. However, she was not a 1

(which is something we would emphasize sincerely in a session) because she was able to use

themes we had been discussing off the field (1%), she was very celebratory and complementary

about a win, she was able to reformat questions to reflect a SF frame – something even the AC

noticed. At a 3 or a 4, HC would have been able to control her temper and rely on her

communication skills just a little bit more.

January (AR Cycle Three). This was the turning point. HC went from a 2 the previous

month to a 4. Two points represents enormous movement, significant change. We went from rock

bottom at the beginning of the month to ‘getting it’ by the end of the month. HC made a

momentous discovery, the competing discourses. She realized that her assistant coaches (AC2

and ACM) were coaching too negatively which created a dilemma for her – it limited her

coaching options because she felt the need to be solution-focused all of the time. HC also

discussed becoming aware that she had to make ‘massive’ deposits with some of the athletes. The

designated theme for the month became positivity. Most significantly, following a 3 game losing

streak her post-game talk was a lesson in SF noticing and complimenting. Something clicked by

279
beginning of February. At a five or 6, she would have made these observations earlier in the

month and been able to control her temper.

February (AR Cycle Three). As result of the important insights HC made by the end of

January, February marked Coach’s new WB. At the first game of the month she confided in AC

that she wasn’t going to yell at the players anymore during the game. She had already instructed

AC2 and ACM not to yell either. Both her pre and post-game talks changed dramatically. The

team finished the season with a 6 game win streak. HC was 6 on the scale this month; at a 7 she

would have been using SF key words (what else?, instead, differently, manage) more

consistently. However, the most important change at the end of the season, was not even the

language but more importantly she understood the philosophy – why we were doing it. She was

on the path to creating her own discourse.

March.(AR Cycle Four: Review). At the end of February I led the coaching staff at a two
day retreat.

280
 Appendix S: List of Abbreviations

AAR After action review

AC Assistant coach

AC Abstract experience

AE Active Experimentation

APS After Pat Summit

AR Action Research

BPS Before Pat Summit

CAC Coaching Association of Canada

CDP Coach Development Programs

CD Competing Discourses

CDA Critical discourse analysis

CE Concrete experience

CET Coach as expert theme

CF Critical friend

EJMT Ends justify the means theme

GSM Great Sport Myth

GSMT Great sport myth theme

GPWT Good players want this theme

HC Head coach

HWT Hard work theme

MAP Measure of Actualizing Potential

NCCP National Coaching Certification Program

PAR participatory action research 281

RLSS Revised Leadership Scale for Sport

RO Reflective Observation

SA Self-actualiztion

SF solution focused

SFC Solution-Focused coaching

SFT Solution-Focused therapy

SFP Solution-Focused practice

TCT Tough coach theme

WB Way of Being

282
 Appendix T: Ethics Approval Letter

PROTOCOL REFERENCE # 35225

November 21, 2017

Dr. Gretchen Kerr Ms. Elaine Cook

FACULTY OF KINESIOLOGY AND FACULTY OF KINESIOLOGY AND PHYSICAL
PHYSICAL EDUCATION EDUCATION

Dear Dr. Kerr and Ms. Elaine Cook,

Re: Your research protocol entitled, " Leader and leadership development: A deliberate
approach w ith varsity athletes"

ETHICS APPROVAL Original Approval Date: November 20, 2017

Expiry Date: November 19, 2018
Continuing Review Level: 1

We are w riting to advise you that the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (REB) has
granted approval to the above-named research protocol under the REB' s delegated review
process. Your protocol has been approved for a period of one year and ongoing research
under this protocol must be renew ed prior to the expiry date.

Any changes to the approved protocol or consent materials must be reviewed and approved
through the amendment process prior to its implementation. Any adverse or unanticipated
events in the research should be reported to the Research Oversight and Compliance Office
- Human Research Ethics Program as soon as possible.

Please ensure that you submit an Ethics Renewal Form or a Study Completion/Closure
Report 15 to 30 days prior to the expiry date of your current ethics approval. Note that
ethics renewals for studies cannot be accepted more than 30 days prior to the date of
expiry.

If your research is funded by a third party, please contact the assigned Research Funding
Officer in Research Services to ensure that your funds are released.

Please note, all approved research studies are eligible for a routine Post-Approval Review
(PAR) site visit. If chosen, you w ill receive a notification letter from our office. For
information on PAR, please see
http://w w w .research.utoronto.ca/w p-content/uploads/documents/2014/09/PAR-Program-Descrip
tion-1.pdf.

Best w ishes for the successful completion of your research.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Peter, Ph.D.

REB Chair

Research Oversight and Compliance Office - Human Research Ethics Program

McMurrich Building, 12 Queen' s Park Crescent West, 2nd Floor, Toronto, ON M5S 1S8 Canada
Tel: + 1 416 946-3273 Fax: + 1 416 946-5763 ethics.review@utoronto.ca http://www.research.utoronto.ca/for-researchers-administrators/ethics/

283