TY - JOUR
T1 - Charming, influencing and seducing
T2 - a portrayal of everyday coaching
AU - Santos, Sofia
AU - Jones, Robyn L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022/2/16
Y1 - 2022/2/16
N2 - Since a critical turn was embarked on two decades ago, research into sports coaching has increased in quality and quantity [see Jones, R. L. (2019). Studies in sports coaching. Cambridge Scholars Publishing]. Despite such welcome advances, the essence or heart of the activity remains contested terrain [Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011). Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching science. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 63(4), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483687; Jones, R. L., Edwards, C., & Tuim Viotto Filho, I. A. (2016). Activity theory, complexity and sports coaching: An epistemology for a discipline. Sport, Education and Society, 21(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.895713]. Subsequently, the aim of this work was to inductively analyse the practice of a top-level sports coach to better understand the core of what he actually did whilst working. This was particularly in terms how he managed the working contexts and the others within it towards desired ends. In seeking a ‘bottom up’ construction of practice, the study adopted tenets from both grounded theory and phenomenological inquiry. More specifically, the fieldwork was conducted over a 6-month period at a top-level women’s basketball club, with the data collection methods being ethnographic in nature, inclusive of participant observation and informal interviews. The main findings indicated that the coach in question, together with his coaching team, were engaged in a series of social, power-related, seductive strategies designed to charm athletes and others to ‘buy into’ the given agenda.
AB - Since a critical turn was embarked on two decades ago, research into sports coaching has increased in quality and quantity [see Jones, R. L. (2019). Studies in sports coaching. Cambridge Scholars Publishing]. Despite such welcome advances, the essence or heart of the activity remains contested terrain [Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011). Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching science. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 63(4), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483687; Jones, R. L., Edwards, C., & Tuim Viotto Filho, I. A. (2016). Activity theory, complexity and sports coaching: An epistemology for a discipline. Sport, Education and Society, 21(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.895713]. Subsequently, the aim of this work was to inductively analyse the practice of a top-level sports coach to better understand the core of what he actually did whilst working. This was particularly in terms how he managed the working contexts and the others within it towards desired ends. In seeking a ‘bottom up’ construction of practice, the study adopted tenets from both grounded theory and phenomenological inquiry. More specifically, the fieldwork was conducted over a 6-month period at a top-level women’s basketball club, with the data collection methods being ethnographic in nature, inclusive of participant observation and informal interviews. The main findings indicated that the coach in question, together with his coaching team, were engaged in a series of social, power-related, seductive strategies designed to charm athletes and others to ‘buy into’ the given agenda.
KW - Sports coaching
KW - charisma
KW - control
KW - exchange
KW - grounded theory
KW - micro-politics
KW - orchestration
KW - phenomenology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124715727&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13573322.2022.2029390
DO - 10.1080/13573322.2022.2029390
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85124715727
SN - 1357-3322
VL - 28
SP - 448
EP - 460
JO - Sport, Education and Society
JF - Sport, Education and Society
IS - 4
ER -