Knowledge Transfer: How do High Performance Coaches · PDF filewere 205 coaches who completed...

Knowledge Transfer: How do HighPerformance Coaches Access the

Knowledge of Sport Scientists?Ian Reade, Wendy Rodgers and Nathan Hall

Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, E471 Van Vliet Centre,University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H9, Canada

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research was to answer three specific questions: i)

How do coaches perceive sport science research? ii) What sources do

coaches consult when looking for new ideas? and iii) What barriers do

coaches encounter when trying to access new information? All of the high-

performance coaches involved in Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) were

contacted to complete an on-line survey related to these questions. There

were 205 coaches who completed at least part of the questionnaire. There

was a strong consensus that the CIS coaches believe that sport science

makes an important contribution to high-performance sport. Gaps exist

between what coaches are looking for and the research that is being

conducted, especially in the area of tactics and strategies. Coaches are

most likely to consult other coaches, or attend coaching conferences to

get new information. Sport scientists and their publications were ranked

very low by the coaches as a likely source of sport science information. The

barriers to the coaches’ access to sport science are the time required to

find and read scientific journals, and lack of direct access to a sport

scientist. Strategies to remove the barriers could include rewarding sport

scientists for successful transfer of their knowledge to practice through

direct communication with coaches.

Key words: Coach Education, Informal Learning, Sports Science,

Unmediated Learning

INTRODUCTIONHigh-performance coaches must meet the requirements and demands of high-performanceathletes looking for a winning edge, which, in turn, constantly increases the level andsophistication of the knowledge the coaches are seeking as well as the challenge of findingit. We are interested in the extent to which sport science specifically contributes to thatwinning edge, and whether there is an effective delivery mechanism for the knowledgegenerated by sport scientists to the coaches who need the information.

There is general agreement regarding the basic knowledge required by coaches to workeffectively with athletes that is reflected in the extant literature [1-3] and in the content of

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 · Number 3 · 2008 319

Reviewers: John Williams (Australian Institute of Sport, Australia)Michael Chia (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)

existing formal coach education programs such as the National Coaching CertificationProgram [4]. There has also been discussion in the coaching literature about the wayscoaches at all levels acquire knowledge, including coaches of high-performance athletes.However, it is clear that transfer of sport science to coaches remains a vexing problem forboth coaches and scientists [5]. In a round table discussion of whether sport scienceinfluenced coaching practice reported by Bishop et al. [6], a working definition of sportscience was that it “. . . is concerned with providing evidence that improves sportsperformance” (p. 1). In a recent study, Williams and Kendall [5] concluded that “congruencebetween the perspective of elite coaches and sports science researchers in this study isencouraging” (p. 1585), but suggest the environment within which the study was done (theAustralian Institute of Sport) may have influenced the results. Nevertheless, a level ofconsultation and cooperation between coaches and researchers was evident. We believe thisis a significant finding as it appears to be the first published empirical evidence of asuccessful relationship between high-performance coaches and sport scientists; a result thatmerits study in other environments

A review of the sport science literature revealed a plethora of editorials and opinionpapers dating back to 1980 when Burke [7] wrote “Bridging the gap in sports science”. Burke[7] concluded that “better communication is needed between sport scientists and coaches andathletes in order for the scientists’ work to have any real value”. This piece was published inAthletic Purchasing and Facilities. This is a domain-specific Canadian magazine; and,whereas Burke’s conclusion will ring true with coaches, there has been little pursuant to thispiece that has shed light on this issue. In a relatively cursory review, we found 13 such piecespublished in outlets as varied as “Sportstravel” [8], the “Scottish Rugby Union” [9], “SwimMagazine” [10], “Sports Information Bulletin” [11], “Coaching Director” [12], “Spotlight onYouth Sports” [13], “Track Coach” [14], “Skating” [15] in addition to several conferenceabstracts from the International Association of Sports Information [16-18] and in anunpublished master’s thesis [19]. Unfortunately, the majority of these attempts to address thisproblem are reported in conference presentations or in sport specific newsletters ormagazines that are difficult to access for the majority of interested individuals. Conferencepresentations have a limited influence on only those who attended the presentation.Newsletters from specific sports organizations tend to have a small, often regional, targetaudience, and they also tend not to be stocked by larger libaries or data-bases, thus limitinglonger-term access to those outside the organization. However, all of these sourcesdemonstrate the pervasiveness of the question of how to achieve knowledge transfer tocoaches around the world, across sports, and across sport-related jobs including coaches,administrators, and facilities managers.

Sport science, although the target of many discussions of the “knowledge-practice” gapor of enhancing “evidence-based practice”, has apparently not focused a great deal ofattention on this issue with a few notable exceptions that at least describe some of the wayscoaches actively enhance their knowledge. Cushion et al. [20] aimed to pin down the natureof “coaching knowledge” in an effort to “move beyond … content knowledge that hasinformed coach education programs . . .” (p. 216) and to look at coach experience inparticular. Relatedly, Rodgers et al. [21] also found that coaches’ competitive experience wasa source of knowledge that contributed to their use of coaching practices that arerecommended through the National Coaching Certification Program in Canada. In anotherpaper providing some empirical evidence, Hedrick [22] interviewed three US strength andconditioning coaches regarding where they get their new ideas and how they get theinformation required to fulfil their “ . . . responsibility to provide . . . athletes the best possible

320 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists

training program to enhance their opportunity to achieve their performance goals” (p. 48).Two of the three expert coaches interviewed by Hedrick reported that other coaches (i.e.,conversations, visits, observations) was their main source, and the third reported thatattending strength and conditioning conferences and clinics were his main source. Irwin etal. [23] found that high-performance gymnastics coaches rely on other coaches in theirefforts to improve their knowledge and practice, and actively seek information dependingupon the issue or problem encountered. These sources are consistent with Werthner andTrudel’s [3] claim that experienced coaches tend to prefer unmediated learning; i.e., theyprefer to seek their own information as the need arises.

From the literature available, most would agree that coaches prefer to get their knowledgefrom other coaches. In fact, Bell [24] suggested that coaches prefer to learn almost exclusivelythrough the mentorship of other coaches or to call upon their own personal experience asathletes. However, this does not address the question of where coaches get innovative ideas ortheir specific sport science information in the first place. Perhaps one of the coaches, or morelikely the sport organizations, is acquiring the sport science based information and thenpresenting it to coaches at clinics and conferences. Is this, however, the optimal means totransfer sport science knowledge to coaches? And how or where does innovative sport sciencebreak into the recycling process of a coach to coach communication system? Cushion et al.[20] cite Cushion [25] in his critical assessment of mentoring, “Mentoring in its current form,however, appears largely unstructured, informal, and uneven in terms of quality and outcome,uncritical in style, and, from the evidence, serves to reproduce the existing culture, powerrelations, and importantly, existing coaching practice” (p. 223). It appears, then, that coach-to-coach communication might include a recycling of ideas that may or may not have anyevidence based in traditional scientific terms. There is a need to determine where and howsport science might contribute to coaches’ innovations.

One group of coaches who could be assumed to have the best access to sport scienceinformation are those who are based at universities. First, to work at universities, mostcoaches would be required to have at least one academic degree and at institutions withparticularly rigorous academic standards, they might be expected to also have a post-graduate (Master’s) degree. Second, at universities, coaches probably have more access tosport science information through the library systems available to them, and possibly throughbeing acquainted with sport scientists who are also at those universities, or by involvementin sport science research themselves. Third, because university coaches are frequentlyrequired to teach their sport to university undergraduates, they might be expected to be morecurrent in their sport specific and sport scientific knowledge than other coaches. Universitycoaches, then, might provide some insight into the kinds of information high-performancecoaches need, where they search, what they find relevant and available, and what barriersthey encounter in accessing relevant knowledge.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the transfer of sport science knowledgewithin a nation-wide sample of Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) high-performancecoaches. If it can be demonstrated that a large sample of coaches from across Canada showssimilar patterns of aquiring sport science information, it will be possible to consider specificsteps to address the identified research-practice gap. We wanted to answer three specificquestions:

1. How do coaches perceive sport science research?2. What sources do coaches consult when looking for new ideas? 3. What barriers do coaches encounter when trying to access new information?


METHODPARTICIPANTSA survey was delivered by email to a list of 380 CIS coaches. There were 205 coaches whocompleted at least part of the questionnaire incorporated in this study, yielding a responserate of 54%. Of these coaches 165 were male (80.5%), 38 were female (18.5%), and two didnot report gender (1%). This is representative of the proportions of male and female CIScoaches according to information provide by CIS (www.cisport.ca). There were 165 coaches(80.5%) who completed the majority of the survey (more than 80% of the questions). Thosewho completed the survey labeled themselves as being full-time head coaches (n = 115), full-time assistant coaches (n = 5), part-time or honorarium1 head coaches (n = 47), or part-timeor honorarium assistant coaches (n = 2).

The coaches represented a variety of different interuniversity sports: basketball (n = 46),volleyball (n = 27), soccer (n = 22), ice-hockey (n = 21), swimming (n = 13), rugby (n = 9),football (Canadian) (n = 8), track and field (n = 6), cross country (n = 4), field hockey (n =2), wrestling (n = 2), and other (n = 8). Sixty-four of the participants coached teamscomposed of only male athletes, 76 coached teams of only female athletes, and 28 coachedteams of both male and female athletes. At their universities, some had no academicprograms related to sports (such as Physical Education, Kinesiology, Sport Sciences or LifeSciences departments or faculties) (n = 40), only undergraduate programs related to sports (n= 30), and masters programs (n = 52) or PhD programs (n = 81) related to sports.

Additional data regarding coaches’ amount of experience and education was alsocollected. The number of years of experience coaching high-performance athletes rangedfrom 0-5 years (n = 15), 5-10 years (n = 47), 10-15 years (n = 36), 15-20 years (n = 33), and20+ years (n = 38). Their highest level of education completed was listed as high school (n= 6), post-secondary diploma or certificate (n = 6), University Bachelor’s degree (n = 89),University Master’s degree (n = 58), or University Doctorate degree (n = 9). Finally, theCoaching Association of Canada’s National Coaching Certification Program(www.coach.ca) level was reported as either Level 1 (n = 2), Level 2 (n = 14), Part A and/orPart B (n = 7), Level 3 (n = 83), Level 4 (n = 50), Level 5 (n = 6), or None (n = 5).

INSTRUMENTAn on-line questionnaire was utilized. The questionnaire was specifically designed by theresearch team for the purposes of this research and was titled “New Ideas for high-performance Coaches”. It was composed of 33 items designed to examine how sport researchknowledge is transferred to high-performance (CIS) coaches in Canada.

PROCEDURESThe research was approved by a University Research Ethics Board. CIS coaches from acrossCanada were contacted by the research team through e-mail. In the e-mail, coaches wereinformed about the nature of the study and were asked to participate by completing the on-line questionnaire. Those individuals who decided to partake in the study completed thequestionnaire at their leisure. The questionnaire was developed and administered through theuse of a commercial service website.


1 An “honorarium head coach” is a designated head coach who receives a nominal financial gift annually for his orher contribution to the sport in question and does not receive an annual salary and who generally also does not haveaccess to dedicated office space or other supports at their institution. By extension, an “honorarium head coach”usually also has an unrelated full-time job outside the university.

RESULTSHOW DO COACHES PERCEIVE SPORT SCIENCE RESEARCH?Based on the assumption that high-performance coaches are looking for new ideas, we askedthe coaches to choose between two responses: “Coaches in our sport are always looking fornew ideas.” or “Coaches in our sport mostly look for new ideas when their athletes are notperforming well.”; 72% of the respondents indicated coaches are always looking for newideas. We also asked, “Do you agree that sport research is contributing new ideas that couldbe used by coaches in your sport?”. Over 75% of the coaches responded ‘yes’ (146 of 186),only 6 coaches (3%) said no, and 34 said “not sure”. The next item asked the coaches: “Inwhich of the following areas of your sport do you think coaches are looking for new ideas?”.

Participants responded on a 9-point scale from “most likely” = 1 to “least likely” = 9.Table 1 shows the areas and the results. Coaches reported that tactics/strategies, teambuilding, and mental training and preparation were most likely to be of interest to them.Nutrition, injury prevention/recovery, and strength training were the areas identified as leastlikely to be of interest.

To determine whether any of the demographic variables (i.e., gender, NCCP level, yearsof experience, full-time vs. part-time, university programs related to sport) influenced howcoaches responded to the items in Table 1, Chi-square analyses were undertaken. Some ofthe demographic variables that were included in the survey were not analyzed due toinsufficient numbers in several of the categories (i.e., sport coached and coach educationlevel). There was, however, no evidence indicating that any of the demographic variableswere related to coaches’ responses in Table 1, suggesting that the types of ideas sought areidiographic and not necessarily linked to age, gender, sport or years of experience.

We then asked coaches to rate their beliefs regarding contributions of sport research tonew ideas in a variety of different areas (e.g., Mental training and preparation) in their sport(see Table 2). A 6-point scale was utilized. Again, Chi-square analysis revealed that strengthand fitness/conditioning received a rating of ‘yes definitely’ more often than any other areas,whereas the area of ‘team practice drills’ was the only area to receive more ratings of‘unlikely’ and ‘definitely not’ than ratings of ‘likely’ and ‘yes definitely’. By comparing theresults in Table 1 with the results in Table 2, we see a clear indication that the coaches believesport research is contributing new ideas, but not necessarily in the areas they believe are ofgreatest interest to coaches.

For the item, “In your opinion, does the sport research information need to be sportspecific, or are you comfortable adapting it to your own situation?”, coaches selected one oftwo responses. Just over 40% of the coaches (n = 66 of 154 respondents) indicated that theresearch needs to be sport specific, and the remaining 88 coaches (57.1%) indicated that theythought they could adapt information to their needs. Another item (see Table 3) requiredcoaches to respond to six statements about the relevance of sport science to their practice.Coaches disagreed with the statement #1, ‘There is no sport research being conducted in mysport specifically’, thus reaffirming the finding that coaches believe sport research is beingconducted. However, coaches also agreed strongly with #4 that research is not easilyaccessible and also agreed with #2 that research is not presented in formats that can be usedeasily. In their responses to #5, coaches indicated they do not have access to sport researchersto solve coaching problems and in #6 indicated they do not regularly use the services of sportscience researchers with their athletes. Overall, sport science does not have a strong presencein coaches’ regular practice although they believe some relevant research is being done.

To determine whether any of the demographic variables influenced how coachesresponded to the items regarding how coaches perceive sport research, Chi-square analyses



Tab

le 1

. Are

as

of

Sp

ort

th

at

Co

ac

he

s a

re M

ost

Lik

ely

an

d L

ea

st L

ike

ly t

o b

e L

oo

kin

g f

or

Ne

w Id

ea

s

Are

a of

Spo

rtN

umbe

rof

Coa

ches

%

Num

ber

of C

oach

es

%

Mos

t L

ikel

yL

east

Lik

ely

Tact

ical

/str

ateg

y40

22.5

95.

1M

enta

l tra

inin

g an

d pr

epar

atio

n35

21.0

127.

2Te

am b

uild

ing/

cohe

sion

2213

.26

3.6

Fitn

ess/

cond

ition

ing

2111

.79

5.0

Team

pra

ctic

e dr

ills

2012

.013

7.8

Indi

vidu

al s

kill

deve

lopm

ent

149.

25

3.3

Inju

ry p

reve

ntio

n/re

cove

ry7

3.7

5026

.3St

reng

th tr

aini

ng5

3.1

3N

utri

tion

42.

437

21.9

Tota

l16

814

4

Tab

le 2

. Be

lief

tha

t S

po

rt R

ese

arc

h is

Co

ntr

ibu

ting

Ne

w Id

ea

s to

Sp

ec

ific

Are

as

of

Sp

ort

Are

a of

Spo

rtY

es D

efin

itel

yL

ikel

yU

nsur

eU

nlik

ely

Def

init

ely

Not

N/A

N (

%)

N (

%)

N (

%)

N (

%)

N (

%)

N (

%)

Men

tal t

rain

ing

and

prep

arat

ion

73 (

39.9

)83

(45

.4)

16 (

8.7)

10 (

5.5)

1 (0

.5)

0 (0

.0)

Team

bui

ldin

g/co

hesi

on45

(24

.7)

85 (

46.7

)39

(21

.4)

11 (

6.0)

2 (1

.1)

0 (0

.0)

Tech

nica

l45

(25

.6)

51 (

24.9

)26

(14

.8)

42 (

23.9

)10

(5.

7)2

(1.1

)Te

am p

ract

ice

drill

s21

(11

.9)

45 (

25.4

)38

(21

.5)

54 (

30.5

)17

(9.

6)2

(1.1

)In

divi

dual

ski

ll de

velo

pmen

t tec

hniq

ues

28 (

15.6

)70

(39

.1)

35 (

19.6

)38

(21

.2)

8 (4

.5)

0 (0

.0)

Tact

ical

/str

ateg

y26

(14

.9)

55 (

31.4

)35

(20

.0)

43 (

24.6

)15

(8.

6)0

(0.0

)N

utri

tion

70 (

38.7

)83

(45

.9)

21 (

11.6

)3

(1.7

)3

(1.7

)1

(0.6

)St

reng

th98

(53

.8)

68 (

37.4

)12

(6.

6)3

(1.6

)1

(0.5

)0

(0.0

)Fi

tnes

s/co

nditi

onin

g99

(54

.4)

65 (

35.7

)15

(7.

3)2

(1.1

)1

(0.5

)0

(0.0

)In

jury

pre

vent

ion

and

reco

very

72 (

39.8

)79

(43

.6)

20 (

11.0

)7

(3.9

)3

(1.7

)0

(0.0

)U

nder

stan

ding

toda

y’s

athl

etes

33 (

16.1

)65

(36

.5)

54 (

30.3

)14

(7.

9)10

(5.

6)2

(1.1

)


Tab

le 3

. Re

spo

nse

s to

Sta

tem

en

ts R

eg

ard

ing

Sp

ort

Sc

ien

ce

Re

sea

rch

an

d R

ese

arc

he

rs

Stat

emen

tA

gree

Str

ongl

yA

gree

Som

ewha

tD

isag

ree

Som

ewha

tD

isag

ree

Stro

ngly

No

Ans

wer

N (

%)

N (

%)

N (

%)

N (

%)

N (

%)

1.

The

re is

no

spor

t res

earc

h be

ing

cond

ucte

d in

my

spor

t spe

cifi

cally

6 (3

.6)

37 (

22.0

)50

(29

.8)

64 (

38.1

)11

(6.

5)2.

T

he r

esea

rch

is n

ot p

rese

nted

in

form

ats

that

can

be

used

eas

ily

by c

oach

es15

(9.

0)70

(41

.9)

44 (

26.3

)22

(13

.2)

16 (

9.6)

3.

The

res

earc

h be

ing

done

is n

ot

rele

vant

to th

e qu

estio

ns th

at

athl

etes

and

coa

ches

in m

y sp

ort h

ave

9 (5

.4)

45 (

26.9

)66

(39

.5)

23 (

13.8

)24

(14

.4)

4.

The

res

earc

h be

ing

done

is n

ot

easi

ly a

cces

sibl

e to

coa

ches

13 (

7.8)

95 (

57.6

)32

(19

.4)

13 (

7.9)

12 (

7.3)

5.

Coa

ches

in m

y sp

ort h

ave

acce

ss to

spo

rt r

esea

rche

rs a

nd

spor

t sci

entis

ts w

hen

tryi

ng to

so

lve

coac

hing

pro

blem

s14

(8.

4)52

(31

.1)

58 (

34.7

)27

(16

.2)

16 (

9.6)

6.

Coa

ches

reg

ular

ly u

tiliz

e th

e se

rvic

es o

f sp

ort s

cien

ce

rese

arch

ers

and

scie

ntis

ts w

ith

thei

r at

hlet

es3

(1.8

)37

(22

.0)

67 (

39.9

)46

(27

.4)

15 (

8.9)

were undertaken. There were no associations of gender or university programs to theresponse patterns to the items. With respect to coach experience, two significant patterns ofresponse that are of limited importance were observed. Coaches with NCCP Levels 3 or lesswere more likely than their higher-level counterparts (i.e., coaches with NCCP Level 4-5) torate themselves as ‘unsure’ regarding sport research contributing new ideas in the area of‘technical’ (χ2 (8) = 22.87, p < .01). Coaches with at least 20 years experience were morelikely (30%) than coaches with less than 20 years experience (13%) to believe it is ‘unlikely’sport research is contributing new ideas in the area of ‘team building/cohesion’(χ2 (16) =29.26, p < .05).

Of greater importance, more experienced coaches were much more likely (21%) than theirless experienced counterparts (7%) to suggest that coaches in their sport do have access tosport researchers when trying to solve coaching problems, (χ2 (16) = 28.93, p < .05). Full-time coaches were much more likely than part-time coaches to somewhat agree (40% versus12%, respectively), and less likely to strongly disagree (14% versus 22%, respectively) orhave no answer (6% versus 18%, respectively) with the statement “Coaches in my sport haveaccess to sport researchers and sport scientists when trying to solve coaching problems” (χ2

(4) = 15.56, p < .01).Chi-square analysis (χ2(6) = 23.23, p < .0001) revealed that coaches at a university with

a physical education or kinesiology program, especially a graduate program, were morelikely to know a sport scientist personally. A total of 128 coaches said they knew a sportscientist personally. Of these, a total of 93 were from an institution with a PE or sport-relatedPh.D. or Masters program compared to a total of 35 whose institution had no program (n =12) or an undergraduate program only (n = 23). The rest (n = 35) said they did not personallyknow a sport scientist. A similar pattern was observed when examining whether coaches hadan opportunity to actually work with a sport scientist. A total of 91 coaches (54% ) said theyhad the opportunity to work with a sport scientist; of these, 72 coaches from institutions withgraduate programs in PE or a related area said “yes” whereas only 19 from institutions withundergraduate or no related program said “yes”. The rest (n = 74) said no. Chi-squareanalysis (χ2(6) = 24.52, p < .0001) revealed that coaches at a university with a PE orkinesiology program, especially a graduate program, are significantly more likely to have theopportunity to work with a sport scientist.

In summary, full-time coaches with many years of experience were most likely to endorsesport science as useful, and those at institutions with sport-science related academic programsthat also offer graduate degrees were most likely to know a sport scientist, to have opportunitiesto work with sport scientists, and to believe that there was sport science available. Finally, themajority of coaches indicated that they could adapt non-sport specific science to their ownneeds, and did not strictly require it to be completely specific to their sport.

WHAT SOURCES DO COACHES CONSULT WHEN LOOKING FOR NEWIDEAS? Five items from the questionnaire were directly related to this question. The first item, “Howlikely is it that coaches in your sport would consult the following sources when seeking newideas?”. The response format was a forced ranking 9-point scale from most likely to leastlikely. That is, each point on the scale could be used only once, forcing coaches to rank orderthe information sources. For each possible source, the number of coaches responding “mostlikely” is shown in Table 4.

Coaches reported that directly contacting other coaches and attending clinics, seminarsand conferences were the most likely sources of new ideas. For the second item, “In what


format do coaches most commonly receive new sport research ideas?”, coaches chose one ofeight possible responses that are listed in Table 5. The most frequently endorsed responsewas at a seminar, clinic or presentation by a coach.

Table 4. Most Likely Sources for Coaches to Consult When Looking forNew ideas

Number of coaches %Other coaches directly (not seminars) 53 32.3Clinics, seminars, conferences 49 29.9Videos 23 14.0Sport science researchers/ academics 11 6.7Watching elite competition live or on TV 9 5.5Books/magazines 8 4.8Published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals 7 4.2Trainers 3 1.8On-line discussions 1 0.8Total 164

Table 5. Format Coaches Most Commonly Receive New Sport ResearchIdeas

Number of coaches %Seminar, clinic or presentation by a coach 56 32.9Seminar, clinic or presentation by sport researcher 33 19.4Personal conversation with another coach 30 17.6A summary article of the major research findings in newsletters, magazines or newspapers 26 15.3Other (e.g., internet, pro-camp) 10 5.9Personal conversation with sport researcher 8 4.7Personal conversation with a trainer 4 2.4Original full text from an academic research journal 3 1.8Total 170

The third item asked coaches to rate various organizations as potential sources of newideas (see Table 6). A low percentage of coaches rated any of the listed organizations asexcellent sources. High-performance centres2 were rated as “excellent” more often than anyother organization, although a number of organizations were considered “good” sources. Forthe fourth item, “If you have an urgent question or problem related to coaching, what wouldyou do first?”, coaches again selected one response from a list of six possible responses. Themost common response which was selected by almost 60% of the coaches (n = 100) was “askanother coach in their sport”. The second most common response was “look for somethingrelevant to read” endorsed by 17.9% of the coaches. The third most common response was“other (e.g., internet)” endorsed by only 7.7 % of coaches. The remaining three responses“ask a sport manager or administrator”, “ask a coach in another sport”, and “look for a


2 High-performance centres are Canadian Sport Centres and other sport-specific high-performance programs asrecognized by the national sport organization in each sport.

seminar or clinic” were each endorsed by fewer than 5% of the coaches. The fifth and lastquestion was open-ended and asked coaches, “What do you believe is the best way to getsport science information into the hands of coaches?”. The data did not reveal any onestrongly preferred format of information. The most frequent response was “seminars/clinics”by 18 (20%) of the respondents to this question, followed by “website” (17.8%); electronicmail (16.7%); “newsletters” (15.6%); national/provincial organizations (14.4%); “sportspecific publications (e.g., journals, magazines)” (8.8%); and, finally, direct interaction withsports science researchers (6.7%).

To determine whether any of the demographic variables for which we had sufficient data(i.e., gender, NCCP level, years of experience, full-time vs. part-time, university programsrelated to sport) influenced how coaches responded to the above five items, Chi-squareanalyses were undertaken. Males and females did not differ meaningfully on any of theitems. For NCCP level it was necessary to combine Levels 1 and 2, and Parts A and B into asingle category (n = 20), as well as combine Levels 4 and 5 (n = 56) in order to achieveadequate numbers in each group for purposes of comparison. NCCP level was not related tohow coaches responded to the five items. The only significant finding was that higher-levelcoaches rated national sport organizations as a poorer potential source of new ideas thanlower-level coaches (χ2 (8) = 18.30, p < .05).

Whereas years of experience and university programs related to sport were unrelated tocoaches’ responses to the five items assessing their preferred sources of information, whetherthe coach was full-time or part-time did have some effect. Part-time coaches were morelikely than than their full-time counterparts to indicate having “no idea” of whetheruniversity academic departments (χ2 (4) = 10.47, p < .05), or high-performance centres (χ2

(4) = 16.45, p < .01) would be good potential sources of new ideas for coaches.

WHAT BARRIERS EXIST IN REGARD TO COACHES’ ACCESS TO NEWIDEAS?Six items from the survey were related to this question. The first item asked, “Do you sharenew ideas from sport research with other coaches in your sport?” and the second asked “Doyou share new ideas with coaches in other sports?”. Both questions had three possibleanswers (“I frequently share”, “I rarely share”, or “I never share”) and 72.5% reportedfrequently sharing in their own sport whereas 51.2% frequently share with coaches fromother sports.

The third and fourth items investigated coaches’ perceptions regarding the funding theirorganization gives them to access new sport research ideas. Both questions had three possibleanswers (“Yes”, “No”, or “Unsure”). The third asked, “Does your organization provide youwith access to annual funding to attend clinics, conferences or seminars where you could findsport research ideas?” (70.7% said “Yes”), and the fourth asked “Does your organizationprovide you with funding to purchase resources such as journals, magazines, books, or on-line resources?” (62.3% said “Yes”). For the fifth item, “Do you know a sport scientistpersonally, such that you can approach them for advice?” 76.6% responded “Yes”.

The final item asked coaches to rank four possible barriers to accessing new ideas (seeTable 7). The barrier that received the largest number of combined “most difficult” and “2nd

most difficult” rankings was “Finding out where the information is”, which is consistent withthe responses reported in Table 3. Barrier #3, “Translating the information” was the leastdifficult barrier, and this seems to be consistent with the coaches’ previous response that theycan adapt knowledge to their sport.

Chi-square analyses were undertaken to determine whether any of the demographic



Tab

le 6

. Ra

ting

s o

f O

rga

niz

atio

ns

as

Po

ten

tial S

ou

rce

s o

f S

po

rt R

ese

arc

h In

form

atio

n A

vaila

ble

to

Co

ac

he

s

Sour

ceE

xcel

lent

N (

%)

Goo

d N

(%

)F

air

N (

%)

Poo

rN

(%

)N

o Id

ea N

(%

)C

oach

es A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Can

ada

12 (

7.1)

57 (

33.7

)53

(31

.4)

32 (

18.9

)15

(8.

9)In

divi

dual

spo

rt’s

coa

chin

g as

soci

atio

n9

(5.4

)56

(33

.5)

45 (

26.9

)47

(28

.1)

10 (

6.0)

Nat

iona

l spo

rt o

rgan

izat

ions

11 (

6.6)

51 (

30.5

)59

(35

.3)

39 (

23.4

)7

(4.2

)Pr

ovin

cial

spo

rt o

rgan

izat

ions

7 (4

.2)

34 (

20.2

)56

(33

.3)

67 (

39.9

)4

(2.4

)U

nive

rsity

aca

dem

ic d

epar

tmen

ts9

(5.5

)48

(29

.1)

55 (

33.3

)49

(29

.7)

4 (2

.4)

Hig

h pe

rfor

man

ce c

ente

rs21

(12

.7)

56 (

33.9

)42

(25

.5)

26 (

15.8

)20

(12

.1)

Spor

t sci

ence

/res

earc

h co

unci

ls8

(4.9

)33

(20

.1)

48 (

29.3

)40

(24

.4)

35 (

21.3

)Sp

ortD

iscu

s/SI

RC

4 (2

.5)

25 (

15.3

)35

(21

.5)

27 (

16.6

)72

(44

.2)

Spor

t Can

ada

2 (1

.2)

18 (

10.8

)61

(36

.5)

50 (

29.9

)36

(21

.6)

Tab

le 7

. Le

vel o

f D

iffic

ulty

th

at

Diff

ere

nt

Ba

rrie

rs P

ose

to

Co

ac

he

s’ A

bilit

y to

Ac

ce

ss S

po

rt S

cie

nc

e In

form

atio

n

Pos

sibl

e B

arri

ers

Mos

t D

iffi

cult

2nd

Mos

t D

iffi

cult

3rd

Mos

t D

iffi

cult

Lea

st D

iffi

cult

1.

Acc

ess

to f

undi

ng to

cov

er c

osts

of

getti

ng in

form

atio

n54

(30

.5)

37 (

21.4

)42

(25

.9)

34 (

23.6

)2.

Fi

ndin

g ou

t whe

re th

e in

form

atio

n is

35 (

19.8

)72

(41

.6)

38 (

23.5

)21

(14

.6)

3.

Tra

nsla

ting

the

info

rmat

ion

from

spo

rt s

cien

ce

into

app

lied

coac

hing

situ

atio

ns29

(16

.4)

42 (

24.3

)57

(35

.2)

38 (

26.4

)4.

T

here

are

man

y hi

gher

pri

oriti

es59

(33

.3)

22 (

12.7

)25

(15

.4)

51 (

35.4

)To

tal

177

173

162

144

variables influenced how coaches responded to these six items. Male coaches weresignificantly less likely than female coaches to report never sharing new research ideas withcoaches in other sports (χ2 (2) = 8.86, p < .05), and were less likely to report that theirorganization provided funding to purchase resources such as journals, magazines, books, oron-line resources, (χ2 (2) = 6.60, p < .05).

Part-time coaches were less likely than their full-time counterparts to indicate that theirorganization provided funding for both attending clinics, conferences or seminars to findsport research ideas (χ2 (2) = 15.17, p < .01), and for purchasing resources such as journals,magazines, books, or on-line resources (χ2 (2) = 11.25, p < .01).

DISCUSSIONThe purpose of this research was to improve our understanding of where and how high-performance coaches seek information and new ideas. The 205 CIS high-performancecoaches who responded to the questionnaire were predominantly male head coaches of teamsports, experienced, highly educated in both formal and coach education, and working in avariety of university environments. As a result, it would be fair to expect these coaches tohave a reasonable ability to understand sport science information and to have relatively easyaccess to that information.

THE KNOWLEDGE GAPThe results of this study were consistent with the findings of Williams and Kendall [5],showing that coaches are looking for new ideas in various areas of sport science and believethat sport science research is being conducted that can benefit their sport. However, ourresults revealed some different gaps between the ideas coaches are looking for, and the sportscience research they believe is being done. For example, the coaches were looking for newideas in tactics and strategies, but were not confident that sport science research wascontributing new ideas in that area of sport. Given the preponderance of team sport coachesin the sample, the emphasis on tactics and strategies is not surprising; however, the perceivedlack of sport science research in this area may reveal a significant knowledge gap. Our studydid not include a review of the sport science that is conducted in each area, and therefore wecannot conclude with certainty that sport research is not focusing on tactics and strategies,but we are confident in our finding that the coaches do not believe it is being done.

Conversely, coaches indicated they are less likely to be looking for new ideas in thephysical training areas but are quite sure that sport science research is contributing to theknowledge of physical training. The coaches in our study seemed confident that in the areaof mental training and preparation, there was congruence between what coaches are lookingfor and what they believe is being done, whereas in the study by Williams and Kendall [5]the coaches indicated a need for more research in this area. Jedlic et al. [24] reported thatcoaches working with high-performance athletes often encourage mental imagery. Therefore,it is not surprising that the coaches in this study rated mental training and preparation as thesecond highest area of interest when it comes to research of new ideas. Furthermore, about85% of coaches responded that they believe sport science is likely or definitely being donein this area.

These results reveal that coaches are thoughtful about what kinds of research are beingconducted in sport science and are not making sweeping generalizations about “all research”for example. It is not surprising that this sample of highly educated coaches would be awareof different areas of sport science and the relevance of those areas to their practice. Theseresults might also reflect higher perceived accessibility of the sport psychology literature to


the coaches than other areas of research. Determining the extent to which their perceptionsof information availability are supported as well as determining what areas of sport scienceare most difficult for them to access (either physically or intellectually) will be importantquestions for future research.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION PREFERRED BY COACHESOur study provided further confirmation of the findings of Gould et al. [27] and Irwin et al.[23] that coaches get their information from other coaches. While their findings likely applyto the majority of the population of coaches, our focus on high-performance coaches addsanother level of detail to their findings. Our results show that university-based high-performance coaches also prefer to learn from other coaches, and their access to other headcoaches and assistant coaches within their own institution may partially reinforce and explaintheir practice of looking to other coaches for ideas. However, we share the concerns ofCushion et al. [20] that this coach-to-coach knowledge transfer system could reproduceexisting practice at the expense of innovation and/or critical analysis. It was thought that, ofall coaches, university-based coaches should have the best and easiest access to sport scienceinformation and to sport scientists. Results indicated that coaches at institutions with sport-related academic programs, especially graduate programs, did have better access to sportscientists than coaches at universities with no sport-related academic programs. This findingis very likely due to the close proximity of coaches to sport scientists and sport scienceinformation in these institutions. It is possible that familiarity of the coaches with theindividual sport scientists may be a key to future improvements in knowledge transfer, butfurther research is required. In addition, the results also indicated that full-time coaches weremore likely than part-time coaches to be aware of sources of sport science information andbelieve that coaches in their sport have access to sport scientists. It is possible these findingsindicate that full-time coaches are more likely to have developed a strategy to network withsport scientists and have better access to those individuals when they have coachingproblems. In addition, part-time coaches may have less responsibility or time for gatheringnew coaching ideas and therefore may be less likely to know of the sport science resourcesthat are available or believe there is acess to sport science and sport scientists. It is possiblethat the part-time coaches in this sample are more representative of non-university coaches,which raises concerns regarding how such coaches (which are the majority of coaches inCanada) access their information.

Gould et al. [27] and Irwin et al. [23] found that experienced coaches accessed knowledgein different ways than inexeperienced coaches and required different types of knowledge.Werthner and Trudel [3] suggested that experienced coaches would be more likely to utilizeproactive unmediated learning processes than inexperienced coaches. Our results extendthese previous findings by looking specifically at sport science knowledge. The moreexperienced coaches in our study were more likely than the less experienced coaches tobelieve that coaches in their sport have access to sport scientists and our results indicate thatthis access may be through an unmediated process; i.e., personal contact. Overall, sportscientists and sport science journal articles and databases were the lowest ranked sources ofnew ideas for these coaches. On the basis of this evidence, there is indeed a gap in thetransfer of knowledge from sport scientists to coaches.

WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO CLOSING THE GAP?The issue of barriers was explored to understand whether there were systemic issues addingto the problem. The larger barriers for all the coaches were having other higher priorities,


finding access to funding for sport science resources and finding out exactly whereinformation is when they need it. With the exception of coaches at universities without asports-related program, proximity and reluctance to share ideas with other coaches did notseem to be barriers for the majority of coaches involved in this study. The pattern of seekinginformation to solve a problem is consistent with Werthner and Trudel’s [3] unmediatedlearning, which is the coaches’ preference for seeking information on their own when theyfeel a need to do so.This style of information seeking would probably not be conducive toeffectively using sport science, which takes time (to review literature) and expertise (to findrelevant papers if they are there). Futhermore, such information seeking for current problemsolving is likely to be both very specific and associated with time pressure. For example, ifa coach is having a team-cohesion issue in mid-season, he or she probably doesn’t have timeto consider many ways of solving this problem; they want their exact problem solvedimmediately. Second, it seems reasonable that coaches, whether or not they have higherdegrees, are not interested in conducting extensive literature searches themselves. They areprobably looking more for literature reviews and summaries than single articles, dependingon the problem they are trying to solve. Thus, there is a very clear indication here that thereis need for a mechanism or process to encourage knowledge transfer between the sportscientists and coaches.

Access to funding to cover costs of getting new information was rated as a difficult barrierfor all the coaches, but especially the part-time coaches. This may be because the institutionsthe coaches are working for do not promote or do not provide money for such informationseeking. The part-time coaches may be rating this as a particularly difficult barrier becauseof both limited resources provided to them in part-time positions, and limitations they placeon their own contributions, again because of the part-time positions.

IMPLICATIONSThere is strong evidence of a gap between what coaches want and what they think is beingdone in some areas such as tactics and strategies and skill development, so there is work tobe done in some important content areas either in encouraging research, or in makingcoaches aware of where the research is.

Whereas CIS coaches prefer to learn from other coaches, they do know and haveopportunities to work with sport scientists. However, they appear to learn most frequentlyfrom other coaches and do not seem to access the written knowledge that sport scientistsproduce. Sport scientists are expected to publish in scholarly journals, not in sport-specificnewsletters, and coaches are not consulting the sport science literature. Even in universitieswith a physical education or kinesiology program, despite the physical proximity of thecoaches and the sport scientists, the lack of congruence of the expectations and goals ofcoaches and sport scientists may be a barrier to interaction between them.

In university settings, it may be possible to create work-related expectations that coachesshow evidence of innovation in their programs based on sport science and that the scientistsmake efforts to increase the accessibility of their work to the coaches. Researchers aretypically required by funding agencies to provide their plans to disseminate their researchfindings to practitioners. Our conclusions agree with those of Williams and Kendall [5] thatit is necessary to encourage researchers to make more efforts to disseminate their knowledgeto the practitioners in their field (coaches). Sport scientists could also consider increasingtheir research focus to areas of concern to high-performance coaches, which our study hasshown to be in tactics and strategies, and psychological areas.

Coaches could facilitate the process by communicating with sport scientists when


problems arise. It may be that sport scientists can contribute to problem solving through theirknowledge of the sport science literature, or through their own personal experience. At thevery least, the sport scientists would become more aware of the problems faced by high-performance coaches which might increase the possibility of collaborations between the twogroups around both knowledge transfer and knowledge creation through scholarly activity.

The results of this study are informative because if this group of highly educateduniversity-based coaches have difficulty accessing sport science knowledge, then thesituation may be much worse for high-performance coaches not located in a universityenvironment. In Canada, this would describe the situation of the majority of high-performance coaches. As coaches at or near the top of their profession, the university coachesare likely the people who coaches within the athlete development system in their sportconsult for their new ideas. Future researchers may wish to examine the issue of sport scienceuse in other populations of coaches (e.g., professional coaches, community coaches, eliteamateur sport coaches), and it might also be prudent to move ahead with research examiningbetter means of transferring and translating sport science and making it accessible tocoaches.

CONCLUSIONThis study suggests that coaches do engage in knowledge seeking, but there is also a needfor improved knowledge transfer. That is, coaches appear to seek information for problemsthey encounter, and report “always looking” for new ideas. However, there is not a clearpoint where sport science enters the predominantly coach-to-coach knowledge transfersystem. The barriers to the coaches’ access to sport science are the time required to find andread scientific journals, and lack of direct access to a sport scientist. Strategies to remove thebarriers could include rewarding sport scientists for successful transfer of their knowledge topractice through direct communication with coaches. Another possibility might be havingmore sport scientists do presentations of their research at coaching clinics and conferences.

REFERENCES 1. Lyle, J., The Coaching Process: An Overview, in: Cross, N. and Lyle, J., eds., The Coaching Process:

Principles and Practice for Sport, Butterworth Heinmann, Oxford, 2000, 1–3.

2. Malete, L. and Feltz, D., The Effect of a Coaching Education Program on Coaching Efficacy, The SportPsychologist, 2000, 14, 410-417.

3. Werthner, P., and Trudel, P., A New Theoretical Perspective for Understanding How Coaches Learn to Coach,The Sport Psychologist, 2006, 20, 196-212.

4. Coaching Association of Canada, National Coaching Certification Program, 2007, Http://www.coach.ca.

5. Williams, S. J. and Kendall, L., Perceptions of Elite Coaches and Sports Scientists of the Research Needs forElite Coaching Practice, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2007, 25(14), 1577-1586.

6. Bishop, D., Burnett, A., Farrow, D., Gabbett, T.J. and Newton, R.U., Sports-Science Roundtable: DoesSports-Science Research Influence Practice? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,2006, 1(2), 16-23.

7. Burke, E.R., Bridging the Gap in Sports Science, Athletic Purchasing and Facilities 4(11), 20; 22; 24-25.

8. Essick, R., The Quest to be the Best: What Coaches Can Learn From Advances in Sport Science,Sportstravel, 1998, 2(5), 2.

9. Anon, Rugby Coaching Cards: Essential Information for Coaches and Players at Every Level, ScottishRugby Union, Edinburgh, 1993.

10. Anon, Education and Information for Coaches, Swim Magazine, 1998, 14(2), 19.

11. Anon, Finland: Innovations in the Training of Finnish Coaches, Sports Information Bulletin, 1993, 32, 2712.


12. Cook, B., How Do We Bridge the Gap Between Sports Scientists and Coaches? Coaching Director, 1986,3(2), 58-61.

13. Russo, R., Coaches and Scientists: Partners in the Development of Information, Spotlight on Youth Sports,1993, 15(4), 1-4.

14. Sands, W.A., How Can Coaches Use Sport Science? Track Coach, 1995, Winter,134, 4280-83, 92.

15. King, D., Smith, S. and Casey, K., How’d You Do That Triple Lutz? Part 2, Skating, 2002, 79(1), 64-65.

16. Hata, T., Endo, T., Morioka, R. and Sakamoto, A., Information Utilised by University Athletic Coaches,Unpublished Paper Presented at International Association for Sports Information, Scientific Congress, June7-9, 1993, Rome, Italy.

17. Johnson, J.M., Home Delivery: Supplying Up To Date Information to Thousands of Coaches and SportProfessionals, Paper in the Proceedings of the International Association for Sports Information, April 25-27,2001, Lausanne, Switzerland, p. 203-204.

18. Ban, D., Sports Information Technology in Education of Coaches in Yugoslavia: A Course at the SportsAcademy, Paper in the proceedings of the Internationa Association for Sports Information, April 25-27, 2001,Lausanne, Switzerland, p. 463-467.

19. Clark, N., A Study of the Information Needs and Information-Seeking Behaviour of Australian AccreditedCoaches in the Sports of Swimming and Track and Field, Unpublished Master’s thesis, 1995, University ofCanberra, Australia, 1995.

20. Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M. and Jones, R.L., Coach Education and Continuing Professional Development:Experience and Learning to Coach, Quest, 2003, 55, 215-230.

21. Rodgers, W., Reade, I. and Hall, C., Factors that Influence Coaches’ Use of Sound Coaching Practices,International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2007, 2(2), 155-170.

22. Hendrick, A., Learning From Each Other: Sources of New Information, Strength & Conditioning AssociationJournal, 2002, 24(1), 48-49.

23. Irwin, G., Hanton, S. and Kerwin, D.G., Reflective Practice and the Origins of Elite Coaching Knowledge,Reflective Practice, 2004, 5(3), 119-136.

24. Bell, M., The Development of Expertise, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1997, 68(2),34-38.

25. Cushion, C.J., Coaching Research and Coach Education: Do the Sum of the Parts Equal the Whole?SportaPolis, September, 2001, Http://www.sportsmedia.org/Sportapolisnewsletter4.htm.

26. Jedlic, B., Hall, N., Munroe-Chandler, K. and Hall, C., Coaches’ Encouragement of Athletes Imagery Use,Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2007, 78, 351-363.

27. Gould, D., Giannini, J., Krane, V. and Hodge, K., Educational Needs of U.S. National Team, Pan Americanand Olympic coaches, Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 1990, 9, 332-344.


Knowledge Transfer: How do High Performance Coaches · PDF filewere 205 coaches who completed...

Documents

Transcript of Knowledge Transfer: How do High Performance Coaches · PDF filewere 205 coaches who completed...