Perceptions of Elite Coaches

7/30/2019 Perceptions of Elite Coaches

1/11

This article was downloaded by: [ ]On: 09 October 2011, At: 07:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Perceptions of elite coaches and sports scientists of

the research needs for elite coaching practiceS. John Williams

a& Lawrence Kendall

b

aApplied Research Centre, Australian Institute of Sport, Belconnen, ACT

bDepartment of Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Available online: 04 Oct 2007

To cite this article: S. John Williams & Lawrence Kendall (2007): Perceptions of elite coaches and sports scientists of the

research needs for elite coaching practice, Journal of Sports Sciences, 25:14, 1577-1586

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410701245550

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410701245550http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410701245550http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20


2/11

Perceptions of elite coaches and sports scientists of the research

needs for elite coaching practice

S. JOHN WILLIAMS1 & LAWRENCE KENDALL2

1Applied Research Centre, Australian Institute of Sport, Belconnen, ACT and 2Department of Education, University of

Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

(Accepted 23 January 2007)

Abstract

A major objective of sports scientists and elite coaches is the enhancement of athletic performance. Despite this commongoal, there is a general perception that research in sports science does not meet the needs of coaches. A study using survey

and interview examined the perceptions of elite coaches and sports science researchers in Australia regarding the researchneeds of elite coaching. Congruence was found between coaches and researchers regarding research practice at the elite level.Both groups held common perceptions on the importance and application of research, the methods by which researchquestions are determined, and the qualities valued in elite coaches and sports science researchers. However, elite coachesperceived a need for more research in the area of sports psychology, dissemination of research findings via coaching clinicsand sports-specific magazines, and the use of more appropriate lay language in information dissemination.

Keywords: Elite coaches, sports science research, research needs

Introduction

As early as the 1970s, and as recently as 2000,

differences have been highlighted between the

activities of coaching and the focus of sports science

research, and the difficulties in bringing together theinterests of these two groups (Anshel, 1986; Blimkie,

1979; Campbell, 1978; Colvin, 1979; Elliott, 1997;

Haag, 1994; Potrac, Brewer, Jones, Armour, & Hoff,

2000; Spinks, 1997; Taylor, 1983; Tinning, 1982).

Coaches are the intended beneficiaries of the out-

comes of a large proportion of sports science

research, yet, in the literature on coaching, frequent

references are to be found that claim that a gap

exists between sports science research and coaching

practice (Goldsmith, 2000). At the elite level, the

link between research and coaching practice needs to

indicate that coaching incorporates the outcomes of

sports science research. At institutes of sport inAustralia (one national and eight state-based), sports

science researchers and elite coaches work closely

together, but the quality of that working relationship

has not been investigated.

The application of research into practice is an

essential part of coaching development to coaches.

Spinks (1997) drew attention to differences between

the focus of sports science research projects and what

coaches think they need to know to be better

coaches. Various methods have been used to identify

what could be called the research needs of

coaches. In the early 1990s, the British Association

of Sports Sciences formed three panels of experts toreview research literature in the disciplines of

physiology (Jakeman, Winter, & Doust, 1994),

biomechanics (Yeadon & Challis, 1994), and psy-

chology (Hardy & Jones, 1994). At about the same

time, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) con-

ducted bi-annual surveys of sports stakeholders

(coaching directors, sports administrators, and

sports scientists) to determine sports science re-

search needs. However, research needs differ accord-

ing to the type of stakeholder. Coaching directors

and sports administrators are engaged with coaching

development at all levels. On the other hand, coaches

at the elite level are concerned primarily with sportsperformance, and sports science researchers serve

two agendas those working with coaches endeavour

to target research to enhance performance, whereas

those working through universities may be focused

on increasing the sports science body of knowledge.

Sports scientists often conduct discipline-based

studies in training and performance in areas where

Correspondence: S. J. Williams, Applied Research Centre, Australian Institute of Sport, PO Box 176, Belconnen, ACT 2616, Australia.

E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Sports Sciences, December 2007; 25(14): 1577 1586

ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02640410701245550


3/11

coaches do not need help (Sands, 1999). Scientists

normally pursue research problems in the context of

their own discipline, be that as a physiologist,

psychologist or nutritionist, whereas a coach needs

to solve a problem specific to an individual athlete,

which might call for solutions that are multi-

disciplinary in nature. The setting in which research

is conducted, and how accurately tests and equip-ment mimic sporting actions, can influence the

acceptance of findings by coaches and their applica-

tion into practice (Spinks, 1997). This could have

particular relevance for researchers given that two-

thirds of sports science research in Australia, at

institutes of sport and in postgraduate research

theses at universities, is conducted in laboratory

settings (Williams, 2007).

Coaches view coaching knowledge as practical if it

applies to their activities as a coach. A preference for

practical coaching knowledge may reflect an under-

valuing of the benefits of scientific knowledge.

Several studies have addressed the qualities valued

in coaches. Expert team coaches develop their

expertise through the use of mentors, education,

and consultation with sports scientists (Salmela,

Draper, & La Plante, 1993), and coaches value

experience and practical knowledge acquired from

participation in sport and from other coaches above

knowledge gained from sports science research

(Quinlan, 2002). However, few studies have ad-

dressed qualities desirable in sports scientists/

researchers. Coaches valued sports psychologists

who were positive, confident, and capable of working

with both athletes and coaches without beingintrusive (Partington & Orlick, 1987). Nevertheless,

coaches were found to have limited knowledge of,

and misconceptions about, the discipline of sports

psychology (Pain & Harwood, 2004). Elite level

coaches would only listen to those sports scientists

who could demonstrate a thorough understanding of

the sport(s) with which they worked (Ellem, 1996).

Arguably, an understanding of the qualities valued by

coaches and researchers might be of assistance in

establishing a productive working relationship be-

tween these two groups.

Researchers are often judged by their peers in

terms of the quality of their publications and thestatus of the journals in which they publish.

Discipline-specific journals are the target of research-

ers, as opposed to multi-disciplinary and/or general

sports science periodicals (Shephard, 1984). Recent

changes to funding allocations in Australian uni-

versities have meant that the need to publish in

refereed journals has been reinforced to the extent

that funding is based, in part, on the record of

publication of a faculty and/or researcher. This has

implications for coaches as an audience, because they

are less likely to read peer-reviewed scientific

journals and are more likely to read sports periodicals

and multi-disciplinary journals. Clarke (1995) ex-

amined the information needs and information-

seeking behaviour of swimming and track-and-field

coaches in Australia and found that the primary

sources for information were the respective coaching

association journals, followed by information stored

in private collections, and friends and colleagues.Other studies have looked at how various interest

groups (coaches, sports scientists, administrators,

and educators) utilize the facilities of information

service providers in the UK (Taylor & Nichols,

1993), and the exposure of coaches to sports

psychology (Blinde & Tierney, 1990). Taylor and

Nichols (1993) found that the primary location from

which coaches sourced information was from the

National Coaching Foundation, while sports scien-

tists sourced their information from a variety of

locations (service providers). Blinde and Tierney

(1990) reported a low to moderate exposure to sports

psychology by US swim coaches, but a moderate to

high rating for receptivity of sports psychology, with a

lack of resources and limited information dissemi-

nated from psychologists to the coaches identified as

the main obstacles to higher receptivity.

Understanding how sports scientists can support

coaching practice is a task for both coaches and

scientists, while acknowledging that sports science

research is derived from a range of disciplines with

each discipline having highly specialized types of

knowledge (Luke, 1995). Coaches with little knowl-

edge of those disciplines may be unable to usefully

apply research findings unless the researchers com-municate in practical terms the applications of

research findings. It has been argued that the

findings of research delivered through appropriate

forums, using appropriate lay-language, and incor-

porated into coaching accreditation material are

more likely to be of use to coaches (Goldsmith,

2000; Pyke & Woodman, 1986; Sands, 1998). The

aim of the present study was to determine (in an

Australian context) how elite coaches and sports

science researchers perceived the research needs of

elite coaching practice.

Methods

Participants

Coaches of Olympic (summer) sports holding

current National Coaching Accreditation Level

Three certification (elite level coaches) and sport

science researchers from Australian universities and

those employed in Australian sports institutes were

selected to participate in the study.

In Australia, a Level Three Accreditation is

awarded to coaches deemed to be qualified to coach

1578 S. J. Williams & L. Kendall


4/11

at the National level. Altogether, 524 Level Three

coaches were identified for survey from the register

of coaches held by the Australian Sports Commis-

sions (ASC) Coaching and Officiating Unit (for-

merly the Australian Coaching Council). A total of

222 coaches representing 19 sports responded,

giving a response rate of 42.4%. Over 90% reported

having more than 10 years experience as a coach and51.7% held a bachelor degree or higher. The gender

profile was 84.6% male and 15.4% female.

Since the late 1980s, the ASC has kept a register of

sports scientists (Sports Science Directory) who have

been involved in sports science research. Researchers

currently on this register would have been engaged in

sport science research at either a university or at an

institute of sport in Australia. Researchers represented

a wide range of scientific disciplines. Altogether, 354

researchers were identified for survey and 125

responded (67 institutes of sport researchers and 48

university researchers) giving a response rate of

35.3%. Over two-thirds of the researchers responding

to the survey were from the disciplines of physiology

(50%) and biomechanics (20%), followed by psychol-

ogy (7.8%), with the remainder representing medi-

cine, physical therapies, nutrition, and other. The

gender profile was 76% male and 24% female.

Procedure

Surveys were administered by an independent re-

search assistant to ensure confidentiality. Surveys

were posted to the coaches and researchers with a

stamped addressed envelope for return to the researchassistant. After 2 weeks, the research assistant sent a

follow-up reminder to all names listed.

Survey design

A survey consisting of 88 items was designed to

gather information about elite coaches and sports

science researchers perceptions of the research

needs of elite coaches. Some questions on the survey

were specific to either elite coaches or sports science

researchers. Items were derived from results of

previous research that were considered relevant to

the research questions being investigated. Four areasof focus were identified for the study: application of

sport science research (28 items), qualities valued in

coaches/researchers (16 items), information-seeking/

dissemination strategies (30 items), and coaching

education and knowledge (14 items).

The surveys consisted of closed questions struc-

tured as follows: rating scales (with 5 being the highest

and 1 being the lowest), rank order lists, and Likert

scales (with 5 representing strongly agree and 1

representing strongly disagree). To ensure content

and face validity, all items were reviewed by an expert

panel of coaches and researchers not involved in the

study. The panel consisted of four sports scientists

(with research experience, across four disciplines) and

four elite coaches (two team-sport coaches and two

individual sport coaches). The panel members were

asked to determine the face validity of the items in

terms of the research questions. The survey involved

the gathering of self-report responses to questionsfrom a discrete population, and therefore the results

are not generalizable to other populations.

The survey was trialled with five coaches and five

researchers not involved in the study to ensure clarity,

comprehension, and time to complete. Data derived

from the survey were collated and coded as frequency

counts. Likert scale items were coded as 5 strongly

agree, 4 agree, 3 not sure, 2 disagree,

and 1 strongly disagree. Rating scales were coded

according to the value of the scale (e.g. five high).

Post-hoc analysis involved Mann-Whitney U-test and

t-test independent samples, using the Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Follow-up semi-structured interviews were con-

ducted with a random sample (selected using a table

of random numbers) of elite coaches (n 15) and

sports science researchers (n10), each of whom

had participated in the survey. An interview schedule

containing seven questions was designed to seek

clarification and interpretation of survey results. The

seven questions sought interpretations from inter-

viewees regarding responses to those questions that

were indecisive or discrepant. Interviews were audio-

taped and transcribed according to each question in

the interview. Interviews of approximately 15 minduration were conducted by the main researcher

because the value of ensuring consistency in ques-

tioning and prompts in the conduct of the interview

was considered to outweigh the potential for bias.

Interview data were analysed according to each of

the seven questions by coding and categorizing

responses. Transcription of interview data was

validated by an experienced senior sport psychologist

who randomly cross-referenced audio-taped re-

sponses for each question in the interview schedules

for both coaches and researchers to verify the

accuracy of data transcription and categorization of

data made by the researcher. Approval to conductthe study was obtained from the AIS Ethics

Committee and the University of Canberra Human

Research Ethics Committee.

Results

Application of sports science research

Items in the form of rating scales, rank order scales,

and Likert scales sought information about the

application of sports science research. Researchers

Perceived research needs of elite coaches and sports scientists 1579


5/11

and coaches rated 10 items (on a scale of 1 5, where

5 high) regarding research areas of benefit to

you as a coach/from your experience as a research-

er, and ratings were similar for eight of the10 items.

The item mental preparation of athletes was rated

highest by coaches and eighth by researchers, and the

item development of recovery techniques for

athletes was rated second highest by researchersand sixth by coaches. For nine items (not improv-

ing technique/efficiency of athletes), there were

statistically significant differences (P50.05) be-

tween the mean scores of coaches and researchers.

Except for the item mental preparation of athletes,

researchers rated these items higher than coaches.

These results are shown in Table I.

Responses from semi-structured follow-up inter-

views about differences in responses for rankings

given to the item mental preparation indicated

that coaches saw mental preparation as the difference

between winning and losing, and as a foundation

(through focusing and motivation) to other aspects of

training, such as developing aerobic fitness, devel-

oping strength and power, and managing their

weight and nutrition. Coaches expressed the view

that technical efficiency, aerobic fitness, and strength

and power development were issues that coaches

had a handle on, whereas mental preparation of

athletes and issues of sports psychology were areas in

which coaches had limited knowledge and were in

need of assistance.

The researchers interviewed suggested that re-

covery technique for athletes was seen as a new area

that had been little researched and which encom-

passed numerous sports disciplines. Coaches and

researchers suggested that enhanced recovery was

seen as allowing athletes to train more and thus

improve overall fitness (aerobic, strength and power)

and technique and efficiency.

In the survey, four items sought information, in

priority rank order (with 1 the highest), about theway research topics are determined and should be

determined. The item together the coach and the

researcher should determine the question was ranked

highest by both coaches and researchers. On the other

hand, responses to the way research questions are

determined showed researchers ranked first the

scientist alone raises the question and coaches ranked

first together the coach and the researcher determine

the question. The fact that coaches perceived that

research questions are developed in collaboration with

scientists might indicate that they are only aware of

research developed by this approach.

Five Likert scale items sought information from

elite coaches and sport science researchers about

approaches to research (Table II). There was close

agreement between coaches and researchers for three

items, but responses were indeterminate regarding

the item performance-based research is only of use

if elite athletes are used in the study. In response to

this item, the coaches and researchers interviewed

suggested that whether elite athletes were used in a

performance-based study would depend on the

research question being addressed and whether the

variable is affected by eliteness. Researchers also

Table I. Preference for research areas: Independent samples t-test (shown ranked in order of means of responses from coaches).

Mean rating s

t-test for equality of means

t d.f.

Significance*

(two-tail)

Mental preparation of athletes C 4.43 0.854 3.871 333 0.000*

R 4.03 0.994

Improving the technique/efficiency of athletes C 4.35 0.962 71.814 237 0.071

R 4.50 0.623

Helping athletes peak for competition C 4.23 0.999 72.185 307 0.030*

R 4.44 0.732

Reducing the incidence of injury/illness in athletes C 4.16 1.0247

2.364 288 0.019*R 4.41 0.819

The development of strength/power in athletes C 4.11 1.051 72.826 299 0.005*

R 4.40 0.806

Development of recovery techniques for athletes C 4.10 1.041 73.224 333 0.001*

R 4.45 0.821

Speed recovery from injury C 3.96 1.161 72.628 299 0.015*

R 4.24 0.899

Enhanced aerobic stamina of athletes C 3.72 1.282 73.681 317 0.000*

R 4.16 0.873

Nutrition supplementation for athletes C 3.31 1.185 72.562 289 0.011*

R 3.62 0.957

Weight control for athletes C 3.12 1.160 72.378 329 0.018*

R 3.42 1.013



6/11

made reference to the difficulty of accessing elite

athletes for their research. Responses were indeter-

minate for the item sports science researchers do

not need to have coaching experience and there was

a statistically significant difference (P50.05) be-

tween the mean scores of coaches and researchers for

the item. Coaches interviewed were of the opinion

that researchers with coaching experience would

have a better appreciation of the issues facing

coaches, but also acknowledged that coaches should

make clear to researchers the coaching problems that

needed to be answered.

Qualities valued in coaches and researchers

Both elite coaches and sports science researchers

were asked to rate eight items (from 1 5, with5 high value) regarding the qualities that they

valued in an elite coach. Both coaches and research-

ers rated high the items having a good rapport with

athletes and keeping up to date with latest

developments in coaching, but coaches placed more

emphasis on success of athletes under the coachs

supervision, whereas researchers favoured having

good rapport with support personnel. On four

items, there were statistically significant differences

(P5 0.05) between the means of ratings of coaches

and researchers for qualities of keeping up to date

with latest developments, success of athletes,

good rapport with support personnel, and manyyears of coaching. Coaches placed more emphasis

on success of athletes and many years of coaching

experience, while researchers placed more emphasis

on keeping up to date with the latest developments

and having good rapport with support personnel.

These results are shown in Table III.

Regarding the preferences shown in ratings,

coaches expressed the view that to get the most out

of their athletes, they need to develop a good rapport.

Development of rapport and keeping up to date with

the latest developments were perceived as providing

athletes with motivation, confidence, and respect

and, as a result, a willingness to work harder and, as a

consequence, achieve success. Researchers offered

different reasons for rating highly having good

rapport with athletes and keeping up to date with

the latest developments as qualities valued in a

coach. Researchers considered that if coaches have

good rapport with their athletes, they are more likely

to have good rapport with others (including re-

searchers), and coaches who keep up to date with the

latest developments are more likely to be receptive to

innovative techniques and the contribution of others.

Elite coaches and sports science researchers were

asked to rate eight items (from 5 to 1, with 5 high)

regarding the qualities that they valued in sports

science researchers. Coaches rated knowledge of

the sport with which they work and experienceworking with coaches/athletes higher than research-

ers, whereas practicality of the research conducted

and good rapport with coaches/athletes were rated

almost equally by both coaches and researchers.

These results are shown in Table IV. On six items

(knowledge of the sport with which they work,

experience working with coaches/athletes, pre-

senting at conferences, professional qualifications/

affiliations, quality of the journals published in,

and number of publications produced), there were

statistically significant differences (P50.05) be-

tween the means of ratings of coaches and research-

ers, with coaches placing greater emphasis onknowledge of the sport with which they work

and experience working with coaches/athletes,

whereas researchers placed more emphasis on

quality of journals published in, presenting at

conferences, professional qualifications/affilia-

tions, and number of publications produced.

Information-seeking/dissemination strategies


asked to rank six items in priority order (from 1 to 6,

Table II. Practicality and application of sports science research (shown ranked in order of responses from coaches).

Mean rating s


t d.f.

Significance*

(two-tail)

Coaches need more research that is based in natural settings C 4.16 0.758 0.548 340 0.584

R 4.11 0.845

Sports science/sport medicine research influences what elite

coaches do with the athletes they coach

C 3.75 0.969 1.552 338 0.130

R 3.59 0.899

Technical aspects of coaching need to be based on sports

science/sports medicine research

C 3.59 1.071 0.144 254 0.886

R 3.57 1.064

Performance-based research is only of value to coaches if elite

athletes are used in the study

C 3.02 1.146 0.419 338 0.675

R 2.97 1.226

Sports science researchers do not need to have coaching

experience

C 2.95 1.121 74.816 342 0.000*

R 3.54 1.031



7/11

with 1high priority) regarding their preference for

the method of presentation of research findings/by

which they [researchers] generally present researchfindings. A Mann-WhitneyU-test revealed statisti-

cally significant differences (P50.05) between the

responses of coaches and researchers for the mean

rank of all six items, as illustrated in Table V.

Coaches placed more emphasis on coaching con-

ferences, sports-specific magazines, lay re-

ports, and general sports magazines, whereas

researchers placed more emphasis on sports science

conferences and scientific journals.

Responses of coaches interviewed indicated that

coaching conferences offered a more personal,

face-to-face environment to exchange ideas and to

ask questions. Reasons for coaches ranking scien-

tific journals low were considered to be based oncost, time, availability, and not necessarily knowing

what (scientific journals) to look for. A lack of sports

science knowledge was also suggested as a reason for

not reading scientific journals.


asked to prioritize from a list of eight items their top

three rankings only (numbered 1 3), indicating the

methods they use to keep up with the latest

developments in their sport (or in the case of

researchers, the sport they primarily work with).

Table VI shows that coaches, as a group, ranked

Table III. Qualities valued in an elite coach (shown ranked in order of responses from coaches).

Mean rating s


t d.f.

Significance*

(two-tail)

Having good rapport with athletes C 4.70 0.612 0.466 341 0.656

R 4.67 0.521

Keeping up to date with the latest developments in coaching C 4. 43 0.727 72.338 307 0.020*

R 4.60 0.555

Success of athletes under the coachs supervision C 4.38 0.720 5.160 341 0.000*

R 3.94 0.806

Having good rapport with support personnel (including scientists) C 4.34 0.793 73.166 328 0.002*

R 4.57 0.529

Using the latest methods/technology (where proven) C 4.34 0.721 71.171 286 0.243

R 4.43 0.615

Many years of coaching experience C 3.97 0.926 2.277 341 0.023*

R 3.73 0.936

Educational qualifications C 3.21 1.048 71.189 338 0.235

R 3.34 0.879

Being a former elite athlete themselves C 2.74 1.147 0.863 337 0.389

R 2.63 0.972

Table IV. Qualities valued in a sports science researcher (shown ranked in order of responses from coaches).

Mean rating s


t d.f.

Significance*

(two-tail)

Knowledge of the sport with which they work C 4.67 0.707 3.446 233 0.001*

R 4.37 0.783

Practicality of the research conducted C 4.66 0.636 0.078 336 0.938

R 4.65 0.651

Experience working with coaches/athletes C 4.51 0.695 3.623 204 0.000*

R 4.17 0.903

Good rapport with coaches/athletes C 4.21 0.9207

0.127 339 0.890R 4.22 0.901

Presenting at conferences C 3.27 1.129 73.072 308 0.002*

R 3.61 0.865

Professional qualifications/affiliations C 3.18 1.236 72.529 327 0.012*

R 3.46 0.833

Quality of the journals published in C 2.91 1.234 76.270 334 0.000*

R 3.75 1.094

Number of publications produced C 2.46 1.103 77.166 334 0.000*

R 3.35 1.083



8/11

attend workshops highest, followed by network-ing and read sports-specific magazines. Re-

searchers, on the other hand, ranked read

scientific journals highest, followed by network-

ing and attend conferences. There were statisti-

cally significant differences (P50.05) between the

preferences of coaches and researchers on all

items except networking, with preferences of

coaches higher on all items except read scientific

journals.

Two Likert scale items related to the dissemina-

tion of sports science research findings. Both coaches

and researchers agreed that there was a need for

sports science researchers to translate scientific

journals into easily understood language, but the

results were indeterminate regarding the item

sports science research takes too long to answer

coaching questions, with responses from both

coaches and researchers indicating uncertainty

(Table VII). Responses of coaches interviewedsuggested that a lack of understanding of scientific

knowledge could be a problem for some coaches and

that other coaches may lack tertiary education and/or

be unaccustomed to reading the kind of complex

material found in scientific journals.

Coach education and knowledge

Coaches and researchers disagreed that coaches do

not need to have sports science knowledge, but

there was a statistically significant difference

(P5 0.05) between the mean responses of coaches

and researchers that I believe that I/the elite coaches

I work with have an appropriate level of knowledge of

sports science, as shown in shown in Table VIII.

Both coaches and researchers agreed that experi-

ence in coaching is not sufficient for coaching elite

athletes and that an elite coach should have

sufficient knowledge to be able to read sports science

journals. On the item elite coaches consider

research important, coaches and researchers

agreed, though there was a statistically significant

difference (P50.05) between the mean scores, with

coaches indicating a higher level of agreement.

Interview responses from researchers suggestedthat not all coaches express themselves in an obvious

manner, and therefore this makes it difficult to judge

their appreciation of research. It was also made clear

that not all researchers work/deal with coaches and as

a result they are not sure if their research work is

considered important.

Discussion

Sport science researchers and elite coaches in

this study were found to have similar viewpoints

regarding coach knowledge, information-seeking/

dissemination strategies, qualities valued in an elitecoach, qualities valued in a sports science researcher,

and the application of sports science research. The

high rating placed on having good rapport by both

groups, as a quality valued in elite coaches and also

in sports science researchers, suggests an acknowl-

edgement of the importance of sympathetic relation-

ships and accord between the two groups, and a

valuing of interpersonal skill above the need for

scientific knowledge. Responses from interviews

suggested that without rapport elite coaches would

find it difficult to develop the respect and confidence

Table VI. Priority order for the methods used to keep up to datewith latest developments (shown ranked in order of means of

responses from coaches).

Item n

Means

of ranks

Mann-

Whitney

U

Asymp.

significance*

(two-tail)

Attend workshops 99 C 1.20 11 741 0.002*

29 R 2.45

Networking 121 C 1.76 13 290 0.288

86 R 1.69

Read sports-specific

magazines

106 C 1.87 10 930 0.000*

29 R 2.72

Read scientific

journals

45 C 2.02 7610 0.000*

99 R 1.60

Attend conferences 91 C 2.05 11 936 0.003*

72 R 2.36

Watch videos 96 C 2.07 7059 0.000*

6 R 3.63

Read general sports

magazines

59 C 2.24 9738 0.000*

11 R 3.00

Search the world

wide web

59 C 2.27 12 406 0.050*

27 R 2.73

Table V. Priority order for method of research presentation

(shown ranked in order of responses from coaches).

Mean

rank

Mann-

Whitney

U

Asymp.

significance*

(two-tail)

Coaching conferences C 2.27 7603 0.000*

R 3.13Sports-specific magazines C 3.12 6360 0.000*

R 4.38

Lay reports to sports/lay

reports unpublished

C 3.24 10279 0.000*

R 3.65

Sports s cience conferences C 3.48 5570 0.000*

R 2.03

General spor ts magazines C 3.65 6658 0.000*

R 4.75

Scientific journals C 4.41 5678 0.000*

R 2.64



9/11

of their athletes, as well as the commitment necessary

to train at the elite level. This is an interesting result

considering the lack of emphasis given to training

interpersonal skills in coaching programmes, or itmay suggest a view that rapport is an innate quality in

a coach.

Congruence in perceptions about the identifica-

tion of research questions is an important finding in

the context of elite coaching in Australia, because it

shows a level of consultation and cooperation

between coaches and researchers. It is interesting

to note that both coaches and researchers rated low

the involvement of national sporting organizations in

determining research topics/questions. Increasingly,

national sporting organizations, including coaching

directors, are involved in the overall development of

a sport rather than specific areas pertinent to elitesports performance. On this basis, it is more likely

that the elite coaches and less likely that the national

sporting organizations would have the expertise to

determine appropriate research topics at the elite

level.

The research area preference of elite coaches for

mental preparation of athletes was considered by

coaches as evidence that this was an area in which

they had limited knowledge and were in need of

assistance. This finding reflects previous research

that highlighted sports psychology as an area of need

for coaches (Gould, Hodge, Peterson, & Petlichkoff,

1987; Sullivan & Hodge, 1991) and for psychology

to be more effectively used in a coaching context

(Pain & Harwood, 2004; Silva, 1984). On the otherhand, researchers interviewed suggested that the area

of recovery technique was one that had been little

researched and may have accounted for the high

rating, even though recovery techniques are now

likely to be addressed by various sports science

disciplines.

The preference for physiology-based research may

be attributed to two factors first, the fundamental

requirement of most sports for athletes to develop

appropriate aerobic and anaerobic fitness, and

second, more researchers working in the discipline

of physiology than in other disciplines such as sports

psychology, sports medicine, and sports physiother-apy. Findings from this study suggest that sports

science research policy may need to review the

emphasis given to the place of sports psychology in

the general sports science research profile. Currently,

sports psychologists working in institutes of sport in

Australia are few in number and are focused on

servicing, as opposed to research, with the vast

majority of sports psychology research being con-

ducted through universities.

Coaches and researchers agreed that coaches need

more research that is based in natural settings,

Table VII. Requirements of researchers.

Mean rating s


t d.f.

Significance*

(two-tail)

There is a need/role for sports science researchers to translate

scientific journals into easily understood language

C 4.25 0.733 70.264 341 0.792

R 4.27 0.849

Sports science research takes too long to answer coaching

questions

C 3.20 0.987 70.194 227 0.847

R 3.20 1.091

Table VIII. Coach education and sports science knowledge (Likert item responses shown ranked in order of means of responses from

coaches).

Mean rating s


t d.f.

Significance*

(two-tail)

Elite coaches do not need to have sports s cience knowledge C 1.99 0.849 723.942 342 0.000*

R 4.27 0.782

Experience in coaching is not sufficient for coaching eliteathletes

C 3.61 1.312 0.367 341 0.714R 3.56 1.253

An elite coach should have enough scientific knowledge to be

able to read sports science journals

C 3.77 0.975 0.865 339 0.387

R 3.67 0.966

I believe that I/the elite coaches I have worked with have an

appropriate knowledge of sports science

C 3.79 0.867 3.237 214 0.001*

R 3.43 1.031

Elite coaches consider research important C 4.10 0.733 7.015 211 0.000*

R 3.44 0.884



10/11

which is an interesting response given the involve-

ment of the Australian Institute of Sport in a

Cooperative Research Centre for Microtechnology,

the premise of which is to miniaturize equipment to

facilitate testing of athletes in training and competi-

tion environments. Such equipment could provide

scientists and coaches with training/competition

performance measures, thereby enhancing perfor-mance data and its acceptance by coaches.

Targeting research to enhance athletic perfor-

mance is one-half of the research process. The other

(from an athletic performance perspective) is to

disseminate findings appropriately to those who will

implement those findings in the preparation of

athletes. Coaches and researchers agreed research

findings need to be translated into easily understood

language, supporting claims made in the literature

(Sands, 1998; Thompson, 1982) regarding the need

to disseminate research more directly to coaches.

Coaches interviewed were of the opinion that elite

coaches may have the sports science knowledge to be

able to read sports science journals but lack the skill

to master complex scientific language. Researchers,

in particular those based at universities, are expected

or required to publish results of research within a

convention of complex scientific language. Research-

ers may need to consider multiple forums for the

dissemination of research findings, with different

levels of scientific language.

Coaches and researchers indicated a preference for

conferencing with their own professional group for

the presentation of research findings. However,

coaches did not rate very high attend sports scienceconferences, and researchers did not rate very high

attend coaching conferences. These findings are

interesting in that it could be argued elite coaches

may not be drawn to attending sports science

conferences. On the other hand, there is no reason

that researchers, whose research activity is directed

towards sports coaching, could not be expected to

present their findings at coaching conferences,

considering that both groups perceive elite coaches

to have adequate sports science knowledge, presum-

ably adequate for presentation of sports science

research. However, as there is little reward or

recognition for such engagement in the academic/research context, there is little motivation for

researchers to attend such meetings. With limited

time or finances, researchers prefer to attend those

meetings that carry the greatest kudos in their

domain.

It could be that, in elite sport, researchers present

their research findings directly and informally to the

coaches and athletes with whom they are working.

Indeed, results from the present study showed a high

priority for networking as an avenue of keeping up

to date with developments in sport. This information

transfer might be part of the networking process

and, consequently, researchers are less concerned

with, or less aware of, the need for more formal

avenues of dissemination of research results to

coaches.

Results from interviews revealed that both coaches

and researchers were of the view that coaches could

not be expected to keep up to date with all the sportsscience literature, and that it is the role of the

researcher to inform coaches of pertinent develop-

ments within the respective disciplines of sports

science. It could be argued that researchers need to

become more active in disseminating results of sports

science research in coaching forums, either through

coaching conferences or sports-specific magazines.

Coaches and researchers agreed that coaches need

sports science knowledge and, in particular, enough

knowledge to read sports science journals. Further-

more, both groups in this study perceive elite coaches

as having an appropriate level of sports science

knowledge and, notably, researchers report that the

coaches they have worked with use an appropriate

level of sports science in preparing their athletes.

Demographic data from participants in this study

may support these perceptions; with more than half

the coaches surveyed reporting that they hold a

bachelor degree or higher educational qualification.

In the absence of research in the area of qualities

valued in an elite coach and qualities valued in a

sports science researcher, the congruence between

coaches and researchers in this study in valuing

rapport could be attributed to the already close work-

ing relationship between coaches and researchers.

Conclusion

The congruence between the perspectives of elite

coaches and sports science researchers in this study is

encouraging, given the resources directed toward the

elite level of sport in Australia. Results from this

study indicate a need for more research in the area of

sports psychology and a need for sports science

researchers to become more active in disseminating

results of research via coaching forums and sports-

specific magazines. However, it may be argued that

the area is sufficiently well understood from aresearch perspective but is not well understood by

coaching practitioners.

References

Anshel, M. (1986). Bridging the gap through research and a major

league coach. Coaching Review, 9, 59 63.

Blimkie, C. (1979). Sport and science ever the twain shall meet?

Coaching Review, 2, 18 19, 21 25.

Blinde, E. M., & Tierney, J. E. (1990). Diffusion of sport

psychology into elite US swimming programs. Sport Psycholo-

gist, 4, 130144.



11/11

Campbell, C. (1978). Bridging the gap or why the sport scientist

and the coach must work hand-in-hand. Coaching Review, 1,

3439.

Clarke, N. (1995). A study of the information needs and information-

seeking behaviour of Australian accredited coaches in the sports of

swimming and track and field. Unpublished MA dissertation,

The University of Canberra, Australia.

Colvin, W. (1979). The void between the researcher and the

coach. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education,Recreation and Dance (CAHPER), 41, 18.

Ellem, J. (1996). The art of coaching with the science of sport: The

QAS way. Sport Health, 14, 22 23.

Elliott, B. (1997). Sport biomechanics bridging the gap between

science and practice. New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine, 25,

5 8 .

Goldsmith, W. (2000). Bridging the gap? Now there is a gap in the

bridge! ASCA Newsletter, 3, 2, 4.

Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Petlichkoff, L. (1987).

Psychological foundations of coaching: Similarities and differ-

ences among intercollegiate wrestling coaches. The Sport

Psychologist, 1, 293 308.

Haag, H. (1994). State-of-the-art review of sport pedagogy. Sports

Science Review, 3, 1 10.

Hardy, L., & Jones, G. (1994). Current issues and future

directions for performance-related research in sport psychology.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 6192.

Jakeman, P. M., Winter, E. M., & Doust, J. (1994). A review of

research in sports physiology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 33

60.

Luke, A. (1995). Sport science support: Implications for the coach

and performer. Coaching Focus, 30, 910.

Pain, M. A., & Harwood, C. G. (2004). Knowledge and

perceptions of sport psychology within English soccer. Journal

of Sports Sciences, 22, 813 826.

Partington, J., & Orlick, T. (1987). The sport psychology

consultant: Olympic coaches views. The Sport Psychologist, 1,

95 102.

Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R., Armour, K., & Hoff, J. (2000).

Towards an holistic understanding of the coaching process.

Quest, 52, 186 199.Pyke, F. S., & Woodman, L. R. (1986). The education of sports

coaches and sports administrators in Australia. In Coach

education: Preparation for a profession. Proceedings of the VIII

Commonwealth and International Conference on Sport, Physical

Education, Dance, Recreation and Health (pp. 29 38). Glasgow:

E. & F. N. Spon.

Quinlan, D. (2002). More art than science: Top coach Dennis

Quinlan joins the ongoing distance running debate. Athletics

Weekly, 56, 26 27.

Salmela, J. H., Draper, S. P., & La Plante, D. (1993).

Development of expert coaches of team sports. In S. Serpa,

J. Alves, V. Ferreira, & A. Paulo-Brito (Eds.), Proceedings of the

VIII World Congress of Sport Psychology (pp. 296 300). Lisbon:

FMH.

Sands, W. A. (1998). How can coaches use sport science? ModernAthlete and Coach, 36, 8 12.

Sands, W. A. (1999). Communicating with coaches: Envisioning

data. Applied proceedings: 17th International Symposium on

Biomechanics in Sportsacrobatics, Perth, WA, Edith Cowan

University, School of Biomedical and Sports Science.

Shephard, R. J. (1984). The challenge of multi-disciplinary

studies. Journal of Medicine and Physical Fitness, 24, 83 89.

Silva, J. M. (1984). The status of sport psychology: A national

survey of coaches. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and

Dance, 55, 46 49.

Spinks, W. L. (1997). Sports research and the coach. Sports Coach,

19, 18 19.

Sullivan, J., & Hodge, K. P. (1991). A survey of coaches and

athletes about sport psychology in New Zealand. Sport

Psychologist, 5, 140 151.

Taylor, A. W. (1983). The relationship of coach and team to the

exercise scientist or bridging the gap a misnomer or a

possibility. Canadian Wrestler, 7, 6.

Taylor, P., & Nichols, G. (1993). UK sports information services: An

investigation of demand by people with a professional interest in sport.

Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Leisure Management Unit.

Thompson, M. (1982). Sports research in Australia. Kingswood,

SA: Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and

Recreation.

Tinning, R. (1982). Improving coaches instructional effective-

ness. Sports Coach, 5, 3741.

Williams, S. J. (2007). A profile of sports science research (1983 to

2003). Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 10, 193 200.

Yeadon, M. R., & Challis, J. H. (1994). The future of

performance-related sports biomechanics research. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 12, 3 32.


Perceptions of Elite Coaches

Documents

Transcript of Perceptions of Elite Coaches