Exploring professional coach educators’ realities, challenges and workplace relationships

ABSTRACT

Despite scholarly interest in formal coach education, there is a paucity of research with professional coach educators (tutors). To date, and despite their crucial role in certifying and developing coaches, their perspectives have lacked consideration and/or have been limited to empirical enquiry in a specific team sport. Therefore, the aim of this research was to explore the realities, challenges, and workplace relationships of 16 coach educators from different sports in the United Kingdom (UK). Semi-structured interviews were used to gain insights into their experiences and workplaces and the data were analysed thematically through inductive and deductive processes. The sociological framework of Bourdieu was adopted to provide an advanced analysis, drawing on the under-utilised concept of illusio in particular. The analyses showed that coach educators’ roles and realities were typically pressurised, challenging and repetitive. Their experiences were generally, however, contrasting depending on the sport and size of the sporting governing body (SGB). Notwithstanding, each participant exercised compliance in the workplace and performed their roles unquestioningly as they appropriated their SGBs’ methods. The findings highlight the need for further examination and critical inquiry with coach educators, coach developers, senior SGB employees, policymakers and stakeholders to shed light and facilitate greater understanding of coach educators’ realities, challenges, relationships and practice within formal coach education cultures. Only by understanding these environments from all perspectives can experiences, policy and practice be enhanced.

KEYWORDS:

• Coach educator
• coach education
• realities
• Bourdieu
• illusio
• field

Introduction

Interest in the workforce that develop coaches has grown significantly in the UK (e.g. Allanson et al., 2019; Cushion et al., 2017; Dempsey et al., 2021) and worldwide (e.g. Brasil et al., 2017; Callary & Gearity, 2019). Recently, Watts et al. (2021) emphasised the importance of recognising and researching the different ‘coach developer’ roles including those of coach educators (tutors), coach developers and coach mentors. Formal coach education is understood in the literature as coach education that is compulsory for certification and delivered by coach educators (tutors) employed by sporting governing bodies (SGBs). This paper aims to provide an insight into the coach educator (tutor), who is defined here and elsewhere (e.g. Watts et al., 2021) as a vital practitioner delivering formal coach education courses where coach learners (i.e. those attending formal coach education courses) are officially certified and educated.

Indeed, studies have suggested that coaching and coach education systems are not neutral, benign or meritocracies but incorporate power-relations and retain established historical and challenging cultural influences (e.g. Christensen, 2014; Watts & Cushion, 2017). To this end, education, learning and practice are influenced by social, economic and political elements, as well as personal, relational and contextual factors (cf. Colley, 2012). Indeed, Roderick et al. (2017) reported the challenges associated with being a ‘sports worker’ and highlighted problematic working conditions with a view to raising awareness of practitioners’ self-respect and emotionality. As a result, the authors recommended eschewing reductionist approaches and called for greater empirical and theoretical sociological work focussing on their realities and voices.

Recent findings highlight that coach education can be imbued with social, micro-political, institutional and stakeholder complexities (e.g. Allanson et al., 2019; Cushion et al., 2017; Dempsey et al., 2021; Watts et al., 2021). In addition, research has highlighted that coach educators can be the instigators of discrimination, inappropriate conduct and methods (e.g. Sawiuk et al., 2021) as well as being fearful of not being seen to comply with their SGB's discourse (e.g. Allanson et al., 2019). As a result, formal coach education has been referred to as a ‘shadowy regime’ (Piggott, 2012, p. 551) with ‘social control’ (Sawiuk et al., 2018, p. 619). As such, it seems as though coach educators can be both products and producers of such discourse (see Watts, 2020). However, coach educators’ views on their work and relationships are under-reported and their voices, realities and experiences in different sports have remained largely absent in the coaching literature. Given the nature of their roles and the broader purpose of formal coach education (i.e. certifying, educating and developing coaches) they, therefore, warrant further exploration.

Almost a decade ago, Piggott (2012) reported different experiences between coach educators (and coach learners) operating in larger and smaller SGBs. The author also posited that coach educators working in smaller SGBs had more autonomy, flexibility and freedom, through a more non-interventionist and relaxed educative approach (i.e. less structured and rigid methods). In contrast, in larger SGBs, the opposite was the case. Piggott’s (2012) work remains important as it raises awareness of coach educators in different sports and SGBs, yet this is an area that has received limited empirical attention.

Scholarship implementing social theory reveals that coach educators can be submissive to dominant authoritative coach education cultures (e.g. to senior SGB staff, stakeholders and questionable methods) manifested in history, hierarchical power and reductionism (e.g. Allanson et al., 2019; Piggott, 2012; Watts, 2020). In relation to such findings, Piggott (2012) commented that ‘by rendering the states and mechanisms of domination more visible, they become less effective’ (p. 551). Clearly, without the coach educator voice, we know little about the ‘goings on’ inside of these contexts. Despite the sparse evidence base, coach educators’ limited job security, verbal parsimony, and their frustrations and inability to change things have also been reported (e.g. Allanson et al., 2019; Watts, 2020). Evidently, there are gaps in the literature and this research builds on previous empirical scholarship on UK coach educators’ experiences in different sports and SGBs (e.g. Watts, 2020; Watts et al., 2021) to explore their realities, challenges and workplace relationships.

Bourdieu's sociology, founded on the reciprocal relationship between structure and agency (Jenkins, 2002), can offer insight and theoretical leverage to coach educators’ subjugated voices (see Watts et al., 2021), and the structured and structuring nature of different coach education settings. Watts et al. (2021) also reported how coaching consists of interconnecting relations, with fields existing within fields, which can have sub-fields. In this sense, coach education can be viewed as a sub-field of the broader coaching field (e.g. a social space where coach educators practice and coaches learn) consisting of interconnected agents who are positioned and structured in a hierarchical manner (e.g. stakeholders, senior SGB employees, coach developers, coach educators and coach learners) according to their possession of capital. Therefore, coach educators practice in sub-fields with certain orthodoxies and legitimacies that consist of structured systems of social relations and positions where struggles can take place (Bourdieu, 1990).

Bourdieu considers power through his concept of capital which exists and functions in relation to a field (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Capital can exist in various forms and the workings of a field or sub-field can determine what is symbolically valued. With regard to coach education, social capital (i.e. the position held in the sub-field and contacts) and cultural capital (i.e. institutionalised, connected, and aligned to the sub-field, experience and qualifications) and its possession are crucial, linked with symbolic capital that arises from the other forms, and is converted when it is deemed legitimate in the field, and is found in the form of prestige, renown, reputation and personal authority (Cushion et al., 2017; English & Bolton, 2016; Watts, 2020). Hence, the coach education sub-field, where coach educators practice, should be explored and understood as a structured arena consisting of internal power-relations and forces.

To further explore our understanding of coach educators’ realities, Bourdieu’s (1998) under-utilised concept of illusio is drawn on. Bourdieu (1998, pp. 76–77) describes illusio as ‘speaking of interest’ and the concept considers agents’ (e.g. coach educators’) conscious and agentic actions and behaviours. Indeed, Bourdieu (2000, p. 78) proposed that all social fields ‘tends to require those entering it to have the relationship to the field that I call illusio’. In this sense, and, despite being under-used in coaching and education scholarship, the concept helps to develop understanding of the current research context and the coach educator as a person (see Watts et al., 2021). Furthermore, illusio can facilitate understanding of how coach educators bring their habitus to a certain field and engage (or not) with its practices, demonstrating a more conscious counterpart of a field's doxa (Colley, 2012; Watts, 2020). For example, illusio considers emotions, caring and values (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Colley, 2012), all of which are relevant to coaching and coach education (Watts, 2020). Importantly, then, the concept of illusio offers an appreciation of how and why coach educators undertake their work and invest their commitment in the stakes and currency of coach education settings.

The aim of this research was to explore the realities, challenges and workplace relationships of 16 coach educators from different sports in the UK. To address the aim, the following research question was considered: In the context of formal coach education in the UK, what are coach educators’ realities? To this end, and given the problems and challenges reportedly associated with the coach educator role, it seems relevant to consider why people do this work (Watts, 2020). A greater understanding of the coach educators’ realities from their perspectives, enables further appreciation of a vital practitioner.

Methodology

Participants

As part of a broader study (see Watts, 2020; Watts et al., 2021), 16 UK-based coach educators participated in this research and were recruited using criterion-based sampling and snowball sampling techniques (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). The coach educators were all part-time and had an average of 9 years’ experience performing the role in the following sports: boxing, swimming, futsal, football, rugby league, hockey, netball, tennis and rounders. Between them, the participants delivered across all levels coach education, and 10 participants also had tertiary qualifications, nine of which had a ‘sporting’ emphasis. All but one of the participants were in a coaching role at the time of the study. To aid confidentiality, pseudonyms are used:

Brian worked in a university in a full-time sports development role. He was a level five coach. He had been a coach educator for twelve years (levels one to four) and had twenty years of coaching experience and an undergraduate degree. He was not an active coach at the time of the interview.

Colin had twenty-two years of coaching experience (level four) and had twenty years of experience as a coach educator (level one to three). He worked as a coach and teacher in further education (FE). He had a postgraduate degree.

Henry was a level two coach and had eight years of coaching experience. He had four years of experience as a coach educator (levels one and two). Henry had postgraduate qualifications and worked in higher education.

Ben had an undergraduate degree and was a level three coach. He worked in FE as a lecturer and had eight years of coaching experience. He had been a coach educator for two years (level one and two). He coached part-time in a university role working in disability sport.

Kris had worked as a PE teacher, a teacher in higher education, was a level three coach, and coached part-time. He had been a coach educator for seven years (levels one and two) and a qualified coach for nineteen years.

Ernie was a part-time coach (level three) with twenty years of coaching experience. He had worked as a coach educator for six years (levels one to three) and had a part-time university coach development role. He had a degree in business studies.

Fred had been a professional athlete for fifteen years and had twenty years of coaching experience. He was a level four coach and worked in a full-time FE coaching role. He had been a coach educator for twelve years (levels one to three).

James worked as a lecturer in tertiary education and was a part-time voluntary coach. He had twelve years of coaching experiences, was a level two coach, and had delivered coach education (levels one and two) for ten years. He had a postgraduate degree.

Ruth had ten years of coaching experience (level two) and seven years of experience as a coach educator (delivering levels one and two). She had not entered tertiary or further education.

Sarah had eight years of coaching experience and was a level three coach. She had a postgraduate degree and six years of experience as a coach educator (levels one and two).

John was a level four certified coach with twelve years of experience and a coach educator (level three) for ten years. He had not entered further or tertiary education.

Mick had six years of coaching experience (level two). He had been a level one coach educator for three years and had not entered FE or tertiary education.

Angus had fifteen years of coaching experience (level three) and had delivered coach education (one to level three) for eleven years. He had not entered further or tertiary education.

Sam was a level four coach with sixteen years of coaching experience and twelve years of coach educator experience (level three). He had a postgraduate degree.

Peter had ten years of coaching experience (level three). He had been a coach educator (level three) for eight years. He had not entered further or tertiary education.

Joan had eleven years of coaching experience (level two) and was a PE teacher. She was a level two coach educator with seven years of experience.

Procedure

Following ethical approval, semi-structured interviews were conducted by the primary author to explore the participants’ roles. All participants provided informed consent, had the right to withdraw at any time, and were provided with an opportunity to review their interview transcripts and the study's findings on completion. Throughout the methodology and research, I felt it was ‘indispensable to try to make explicit the intentions and procedural principles that we put into practice’ (Bourdieu, 1996, p. 18). The development of the interview guide and pilot work was influenced by coach education scholarship (e.g. Brasil et al., 2017; Watts & Cushion, 2017). I (the primary author) arranged the interviews at a time and location convenient to the participants and they were audio-recorded for subsequent transcription (Hesse-Biber, 2017). Before each interview, an informal discussion took place about the research. The interviews began with broad questions (e.g. why did you become a coach educator?) and became more specific to align with the aims of the research (e.g. what is like to be a coach educator?). On average the interviews lasted 126 minutes resulting in almost 34 hours of interview data and 430 pages of verbatim transcription.

Data analysis

Research methods are influenced and reliant on their philosophical underpinning and the current study was underpinned by a relativist ontology and constructionist epistemology (Smith & McGannon, 2018). I analysed the data using reflexive thematic analysis (TA) (Braun & Clarke, 2019) which afforded accessibility and flexibility and aided the exploration of personal and social meaning. This type of TA acknowledges ‘the inescapable subjectivity of data interpretation’ (Braun & Clarke, 2021, p. 37) and I was mindful of attempting to strive to ‘maintain analytical distance’ (Sparkes & Smith, 2014, p. 183) throughout the process. The method also enabled me to analyse the data through a descriptive and semantic process (inductively) and a latent level (deductively). During the deductive analysis, Bourdieu’s (1977, p. 168) work helped to bring the ‘undiscussed into discussion’ and assisted when considering underlying meaning and ‘accepted ways’ of thinking in under-researched areas, and the inter-play of structure and agency (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Jenkins, 2002).

Immersion in the data consisted of reading the transcripts several times. A data-driven coding approach was undertaken across the entire data using a constant comparison method (e.g. Strauss & Corbin, 1990) which led to codes being generated and linked to possible themes. Potential thematic classifications were then cross-checked, reviewed, deliberated, and, if necessary, further defined and named (cf. Watts, 2020). Subsequently, data extracts were used to report the analyses and findings. The process consisted of iterative and reflexive elements (e.g. Braun & Clarke, 2021) and led to the construction of the following themes (see Table 1 below):

1. The coach educator role – pressures, concerns and challenges

2. Different experiences and realities for participants in larger and smaller SGBs

Table 1. A table showing examples of raw data, coding, development and generation (theme one).

Theme 1 – Data	Theme 1 – Coding/analysis	Theme 1 – Theme generation
Delivery is quite hard, there's a lot of content to cover; it's pretty rushed	Life as coach educator (get the job done). Rushed/pressured	Role/realities (challenging; enjoyable? Support?)
We’ve had increasing pressure to condense the course, so (sport) used to be three days, so two days tutoring, one-day assessment	Pressure; challenging – life as coach educator (get the job done)	Role/realities (challenging; enjoyable?)
I’d question whether some of them I pass will be good coaches, but they met the requirements	Pressure to pass; conflict; too easy to pass	Role/realities (challenging; concerns; standards/quality)
We’re under pressure to pass them – the message (from the SGB hierarchy) is ‘we need more English coaches’	Pressure to pass; lack of agency	Role/realities (frustration; compliance)

Results

The coach educator role – pressures, concerns and challenges

The coach educators’ roles were part-time and supplemented their full-time employment. The data revealed some of the social and workplace complexities, politics, relational challenges, tensions, struggles, pressures and realities coach educators can face. Indeed, the participants characterised much of their role as being pressured and challenging. Some of the participants appeared quite frustrated and animated when reflecting on their working conditions and the pressures and challenges they faced, but typically accepted them as being ‘part of the role’. These pressures and challenges came in a number of forms, for example, feeling under pressure to pass coach learners, inadequate tutor/learner ratios, and the need to satisfy stakeholders’ and institutional agendas. The following extracts illustrate common concerns:

We’re under pressure to pass them – the message (from the SGB hierarchy) is ‘we need more English coaches’ (Ernie).

I don't have a problem with people passing, but it's one person (coach educator) for four days coaching thirty-six people (coach learners). That ratio doesn't work really, does it? (Angus)

In certain sports, it was felt there was a need to make the courses more ‘attractive’ by reducing their length. The assumption was that the ‘quicker’ the route to receiving certification the more candidates, certified coaches, and greater the income there would be for the SGBs. Equally, it appeared that some learners selected cheaper and shorter courses.

We’ve had increasing pressure to condense the course (level one), so (sport) used to be three days. It's now been condensed to two days, so a day and a half tutoring and then a half day assessing (Mick).

Some (coach learners) are picking it because it's short and cheap. I can also see why they (SGBs) do it, it's from a commercial viewpoint, they want to save money in terms of costs of tutoring and venue hire. I think there's also an element of being attractive, and I’ve had people tell me they’ve picked (his sport) because it's just two days, compared to say football (Henry).

There was also the perception and frustration amongst all coach educators that courses were ‘too easy’ to pass. Colin became so disillusioned with the coach education provision and hierarchy in his sport, that he left the role (before re-joining).

 … all of a sudden you’ve passed this course but you’ve never been in the (real coaching context) before. They’re not coaches because they’re not being asked to ‘coach’. I think coach education in (sport) has lost its way big time. There's no real problem solving. There's no real decision-making for coaches. Everybody's going to pass. And they may not, bless them, they may not be any good at all, and here you are talking about a level three. (Location) is virtually used to internationals (athletes). They could take me in as a level three coach and they could say to me, ‘(work with ‘Olympic champion’),’ do you know what I mean? (Colin)

Henry shared similar concerns:

I’d question whether some of them I pass will be good coaches, but they met the requirements (Henry).

Brian was concerned and also critical of younger coaches who he felt only wanted to practice in performance environments.

All the young ones go, ‘Ah, I want to work with performance players,’ well, you know, it's not as glamorous as you think. And are you actually good enough to be working with them so early in your career? (Brian)

Similarly, other coach educators expressed concerns about the application and attitudes of ‘younger’ coaches. Interestingly, this was something reported by both inexperienced and experienced coach educators:

… there seems to be an increase in those going ‘do we have to complete this part to get the award?’ I can't lie, so I say it's not, but say to them it's worth your while to complete it. I just think that's poor – short-cuts shouldn't be part of the process. You know, some are really brazen and I think to myself what sort of coach are you going to be if you’re after short-cuts already. In all honestly, I’d really like to fail them, but I can't (Sam).

Further commentary also highlighted the financial pressures and lack of job security associated with being a part-time coach educator in their respective sports. John and Brian explained:

There aren't any full-time tutor roles out there. Pretty much you’re self-employed; if someone rings you and says, ‘Can you do it?’ it's great. But then if you’ve got that in your diary and then they say, ‘Actually, that course isn't going to take place anymore because we haven't got enough candidates on it,’ you’ve lost thirteen days’ work (John).

I’ve got a friend who, if it rains for a week, he's not earning anything. Now that's tough when you’ve got a family to support (Brian).

To date, coach educators discussing their own experiences and relationships with other coach educators (e.g. their peers), is something that remains relatively unreported in the coaching literature. Through their participation in the current study, the participants were presented with a rare opportunity to do this and revealed various relational challenges and tensions. In this regard, some negative experiences with their peers were used to shape and influence their practice positively.

I think some (coach educators) can be quite arrogant. Authoritative, dictatorial, sort of, ‘This is what you have to do,’ and quite brutal - feeling like they’re there to fail you. They can make or break the course, and it is down to their manner a lot of the times (Ben).

I have to say there is a power thing going on with many of them (coach educators). Some are very standoffish too. It's ridiculous really, so when I deliver I try to be the opposite (John).

I don't like when you’ve got these educators who are making it an ordeal. I think some could be a bit more human - after all that's coaching isn't it? It's people, relationships, getting the best out of everyone (Peter).

The following data extracts further highlight some of the challenges and frustrations the participants typically faced:

At some of those coach educator CPD events we’ve sat down, we’ve watched videos, and we’ve sort of assessed it and some of the people (coach educators) are just rude. They’ve (coach learners) coached ‘to pieces’ on this video and said, ‘oh he didn't do that’, ‘he didn't do that’, and some of us are thinking, ‘blooming heck, so what, you know, it's not rocket science’, was it a fun session?, yeah; could he have done more demos from different angles?, yes he could, but did it look like it was all right?, yeah it did; so is he going to be all right in front of a group of kids?, yes he is, so that's my philosophy to be honest (James).

In addition, co-tutoring was particularly challenging for the coach educators, with reported issues relating to power dynamics, communication, role conflict, confusion, and different approaches.

The biggest drawback with it all is whatever (training or CPD) course you go on, you then have to go and deliver practically with someone. It can create tension, and we can end up contradicting each other, and obviously this doesn't look good. It's a bit of a weird dynamic and I think this can come across to the guys we’re delivering to (Sam).

If you’re tutoring with someone it can be a bit awkward. You know, they may want to take the lead and can want to get across that they are the main tutor. It's a bit weird really, some can be competitive like that and a bit precious (Colin).

Henry and Ernie added:

Sometimes you know (the co-tutor) in advance and think ‘bloody hell’ and then sometimes you meet for the first time on the morning (of the course). I prefer it when I am doing it on my own (Ernie).

So I could be working with someone that I’ve never worked with before and it adds an odd dimension to it. You don't know what their approach or viewpoint is; or sometimes you’ve worked with them before and you have that sense of horror when you get their name next to yours, and you think, oh I’ve got to work with this person (Henry).

Clearly then, the participants faced various frustrations, pressures and challenges but accepted them as ‘part of the role’. In addition, several of the participants felt that being known as a coach educator was advantageous for their careers and reputation. This point was personified by Brian who suggested ‘there's quite a bit of kudos around being a tutor’ and that appeared to, at least for some, off-set the challenges. The next section offers some nuance and further analysis of the findings.

Different experiences and realities for participants in larger and smaller SGBs

There were some subtle differences between the experiences and realities of coach educators in smaller, less traditional SGBs, compared to those operating in well-established sports and SGBs (cf. Piggott, 2012). Consequently, the data revealed some divergence concerning the cultures of different SGBs. For example, coach educators in smaller SGBs appeared to be more passionate and positive about their sports during the interviews. James explained:

I want to make them (the courses) as fun and engaging as possible because if you influence them (coach learners) positively, you’re maybe influencing around two-hundred people because they are coaching others on the base that you’ve giving them.

In fact, the data suggested that despite facing some similar challenges and struggles, the coach educators working in smaller SGBs displayed a greater sense of pride and satisfaction in their roles than those operating in larger sports and SGBs. For example, Joan explained:

Your passion and your love for the sport drives you forward. So, the intrinsic rewards are important (for coach educators and coaches), and we try to get this across when we deliver (coach education).

Similarly, while highlighting the pressures, the unsocial working hours, and sometimes the voluntary nature of the role (in smaller SGBs), Sarah still reported enjoyment and ‘goodwill’ to be evident amongst coach educators in her sport.

While I think most of us enjoy it, it is quite pressurised, and without payment sometimes. Not that I want to sound money-orientated but why should people give up their own time and weekends for free? We do it to raise the profile of the sport and get more coaches in, but we don't really get incentives … it's more about goodwill in our sport.

She added:

I’ve always liked the idea of the tutoring side, and for me it's probably the most rewarding part of what I do.

Positive environments and relationships with coach learners were also seen to be important for coach educators practising in smaller SGBs. This, however, appeared to contrast with coach educators practising in larger, more well-established, and highly structured SGBs where positivity, relationships, fun, and enjoyment were rarely mentioned. Both Peter's and James’ feelings appeared to be representative of coach educators in smaller SGBs:

So, if you are a good coach and you want those humanistic values and positive relationships, I think they are very effective. And if they’re not (being considered) then I probably question why (not)? To be honest, we are role models for coaches – if we cannot communicate and ‘sell’ coaching (sport) in a positive light, and make it enjoyable, then we shouldn't be here really, should we? (Peter)

You have to find the balance of it (e.g. delivering coach education) being light-hearted, because at the end of the day the vast majority of these people who are coming on these coaching courses are volunteers, I like to make it informal, light-hearted, lots of discussion, try and do my best to facilitate that and make sure that, you know, you don't go on too long, but at the same time you give people opportunity to have a conversation (James).

Additionally, almost all of the participants in smaller SGBs explained that despite the prescribed content all coach educators delivered, there was ‘some’ freedom and flexibility when delivering courses. The data below illustrates this:

We have to deliver the programme and assess certain things, but we are not told to do it exactly by the book. I do know that some educators in certain sports have to be very rigid, and I’m not sure I would fancy doing it like that. We want people to buy into the sport, it needs to be fun and engaging (Sarah).

By comparison, participants in larger and more established SGBs had not really considered changing anything. This seemed to result from a lack of freedom, consideration, and time. Ernie explained:

To be honest you don't really have time to tweak much as there is so much you need to cover and sign off (for each coach learner). It's really rushed and to be honest I tend to think about covering the handbooks and clock-watching most of the time.

Similarly, Fred commented:

It can be pretty intense, you’re thinking about oh have I signed that off, did I do that bit, have we got enough time for the next bit, you know … and, well, now we have less time to do it in, or big numbers (of coach learners).

Unlike the participants in smaller SGBs, coach educators operating in more established sporting SGBs expressed concerns regarding power-relations and authority. However, they chose not to air any concerns in their workplaces. Sam explained:

To be fair, sometimes we have concerns, but we don't feel that our opinions would be wanted. It's like anything else, you know, if you start raising concerns, you’re the ‘trouble-maker’ or a ‘problem’. Who's going to be the one that steps forward from the group. You know, it sounds bad really, but it's the way it is. We’re just ‘a number’ and easily replaced.

In relation to this, and on the topic of relationships with senior colleagues, Angus offered further insight into the realities coach educators can face and their perceptions of the environments they work in:

In the past I saw a colleague do this (question a senior colleague) and it wasn't welcome. It didn't do him any favours that's for sure. And, you know, he wasn't saying anything outrageous or going about it the wrong way either in my opinion. Really it was to do with ratios, you know, the numbers he had to deliver to and assess.

Following prompting, Angus, went onto explain what happened:

Well, he was isolated really and, to be honest, when it had got around that he challenged (name), a lot of us kept our distance a bit (from the coach educator). If it was seen that we were close, or mates, we would’ve probably ended up kind of being seen as ‘bad apples’ too. And we also knew he’d be at the back of the queue when new courses needed tutoring. It's pretty bad really and he ended up leaving in the end.

Similarly, Fred offered a historical account of his experiences in this regard, explaining how he had consciously adapted his actions and behaviours over the years:

As I’ve got older, I say less and challenge less - it doesn't seem to be what those upstairs want to hear. It will rub some of them up the wrong way and I also see a lot of snobbery towards us from those in the big jobs (senior SGB staff). It's probably best now to keep things under your own hat, you know, that's just how it is. There are a lot of egos and arrogance (Fred).

On the other hand, coach educators in smaller SGBs reported that senior staff would ‘sometimes’ ask for their feedback on courses which made them feel, at least to some degree, that they were listened to and appreciated. Essentially, there appeared to be more communication and better relations between coach educators and senior colleagues in smaller SGBs. Peter explained:

I’m more than happy to give my opinion on how it is, because if I think there's a bit of a sinking ship in some senses, then I will definitely say it, because it's probably not just me that may have that issue - it may be other people. So, I’m more than happy to highlight it, and the hierarchical people above me are good listeners in terms of that.

Discussion

As the data suggests, the coach educators’ realities and practice were found to be embedded in complex matrices of social relations, relational contexts, and cultural arrangements (cf. Cushion et al., 2017). These can be considered horizontally, across the coaching field and coach education sub-field (between SGBs), as well as vertically (within SGBs) (Watts et al., 2021). The findings demonstrated differential coach educator experiences within SGBs (vertical) but also differences between SGBs (horizontal). The ‘between’ differences were largely as a result of the position of the SGB within the coaching field and coach education sub-field. Therefore, each SGB was a crucial mediating context wherein organisational factors or changing circumstances were brought to bear on the coach educators.

Importantly, the coaching field and SGB organisations therein ‘all follow specific logics’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97), with their own unique stakes, and distinctive dynamics, providing their own rules and regularities. This means that the structure of fields both impacts and guides individuals’ strategies’ and as the data demonstrated the coach educators acted ‘to safeguard or improve their position’ (Bourdieu cited in Wacquant, 1989, p. 40). In this respect ‘the field is very much a field of struggles’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 101). For example, ‘keeping things under your hat’ (as Fred did) and references to not raising concerns towards challenging working conditions (e.g. Sam, Ernie and Angus), enabled the participants to increase their actual or perceived symbolic capital through the belief that this was desired by senior staff. This contributed to orthodoxy and logic and included following, without question, those possessing greater institutional and symbolic capital. Thus, those agents occupying senior SGB positions (and those aspiring to reach them) would ‘reinforce the power-relations which constitute the structure of the social space’ (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 135). Aligning with agents possessing greater capital and the structure and workings of the field was perceived as being more desirable than dissenting (e.g. Fred: ‘it's not what those upstairs want to hear’). Ultimately, it made ‘practical sense’ for the coach educators to ‘fit in’ and embody the structural constraints, expectations, methods and logic in the sub-field (Bourdieu, 1998). Hence, social transformation, agency, creativity, or emancipation did not seem to feature for the participants.

Symbolic capital gives the ‘power to consecrate’ (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 23) and impose the legitimate vision of the world (cf. Cushion et al., 2017; Watts et al., 2021). As such, the SGBs were endowed with the symbolic power in the sub-field to consecrate coach educators who in turn consecrated coach learners (cf. Bourdieu, 1989; Watts, 2020), but this was more evident in larger SGBs. For example, several participants conceded they would struggle to make progress in the sub-field if they challenged things as it would hamper their access to deliver more courses or higher-level courses. Specifically, they felt this would negatively impact their employment and income (i.e. economic capital), contacts, networks (i.e. social capital), and ultimately their status (i.e. symbolic capital). The contribution from Brian perhaps embodied this point in that ‘there's quite a bit of kudos around being a tutor’. In this regard, the data suggested that ‘resistance can be alienating’ (Bourdieu, 1987, p. 184), showing the need for participants to perpetuate themselves and their being to constitute their existence. This approach ‘effectively forbids questioning of the principles of belief’ (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 102). As such, this also perhaps indicates how some participants felt that ‘acceptance’ in the coach education sub-field positively impacts their reputations, connections, futures and relations in the connected coaching field.

It is, of course, crucial to consider the totality of coach educators, and not consider their practice as uniform, or simply as the sum of individual agents and their ‘interaction’ within an organisation or group. Bourdieu identifies three field strategies, conservation, succession, and subversion (Swartz, 1997). As noted previously, there was little evidence of subversion strategies as the participants agreed that being a coach educator was worth doing. Bourdieu (1998) identifies this as illusio, an interest and a belief or acceptance of the worth of the game of a field that considers ‘the extent to which players invest commitment in the stakes of a field’ (Colley & Guéry, 2015, p. 113).

For a field to operate there must be agents with the appropriate habitus to make them capable and willing to invest in the field. For the coach educators this meant they had a relationship, affiliation, emotive, and therefore conscious ‘interest’ in sport, coaching, and coach education (Bourdieu, 1998; Roderick et al., 2017; Watts, 2020). Illusio can also help to understand and capture emotional investment and commitment; for example, ‘caring about what happens at work’ (Colley, 2012, p. 324), and reflects the conscious awareness of practitioners (Colley, 2012; Colley & Guéry, 2015). Indeed, although the coach educators did ‘what was expected’ many knew they were subjugated and did not necessarily agree with practices in the sub-field. In this regard, although Giddens (1984, p. 181) suggested that ‘the individual actor is not helpless at the mercy of social forces’, coach educators may still be ‘trapped’ or to some extent ‘at the mercy’ of them, unless they leave the sub-field (e.g. Colin).

Interestingly, the coach educators operating in the smaller SGBs expressed greater satisfaction with their roles and relationships with senior staff. In the larger SGBs, however, Sam, Fred, and Angus explained how questioning senior colleagues was ‘not welcome’ to avoid being labelled a ‘trouble-maker’. Rather, these participants felt it was beneficial to be compliant and to ‘keep their heads down’. Essentially, they ‘learned to fit’ and conform, seemingly adopting the ‘choice of the necessary’ (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 380) through ‘knowing one's place and staying there’ (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 82). The coach educators were ‘skilled actors’ in that they understood the rules of the game and knew how to play it. In doing so, they attempted to enhance their status and renown (i.e. symbolic capital) through a combination of social capital (i.e. networks), cultural capital (i.e. more experience and acceptance) and economic capital in the field (i.e. earning potential) (cf. Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Their strategy also relates to Bourdieu's notion of ‘submission [as] liberating’ (Bourdieu, 1987, p. 184) as the sub-field was a ‘site of struggle, for access, for acknowledgment and of acceptance’ (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 33). Essentially, their submission was liberating in that it preserved and enhanced their positions, reputations, and capital in the coach education sub-field and broader coaching field.

Earlier, Angus gave an account of his former colleague who had challenged the hierarchy. Consequently, his colleague was allegedly marginalised, and had little option but to resign from the SGB as he started to receive less work. Angus and his other colleagues, despite agreeing with their colleague, consciously chose to ‘keep their distance’ from him to maintain their position and reputation in the sub-field and related coaching field. This example highlights Angus and his colleagues’ interest and practice through a ‘search for recognition’ and ‘a fascinated pursuit of the approval of others’ positioned in power’ (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 166). Angus admitted he felt ‘guilty’ about his actions, but he and his colleagues still played the game ‘ferociously’ to maintain a ‘good worker’ persona to senior staff (Bourdieu, 2000). Thus, some coach educators embodied the game and were a medium for its reproduction, with illusio being a centripetal force opposing change in certain SGBs. The findings suggest that the rules of engagement in the sub-field meant that change was not in the participants’ interest, even if they secretly desired it.

In relation to this and extending it further, Colin's disillusionment towards the coach educator role resulted in his resignation. It was several years before he returned and did so because the sport ‘was a part of him’ and because he ‘cared’, and even ‘felt guilty’. After re-joining the sub-field though, Colin still struggled with ‘how things were’. This also resonates with the concept of illusio, in suggesting that people may ‘think that certain courses of action are right or good in themselves’ and ‘value others and their conduct in terms of their goodness’ (Sayer, 2010, p. 95). Indeed, findings in other workplaces have reported that practitioners can struggle with a lack of autonomy, agency, and an eroding professional capacity (see Colley, 2012). In this sense, it could be suggested that Colin felt he was being ‘played’ as opposed to being a ‘player’ and did not share the requisite illusio in the game's stakes (cf. Colley, 2012). In essence, illusio here helps to consider the ‘fit’ between Colin's habitus, beliefs, emotions and the sub-field, through the disruption, ethical dilemmas and his subsequent disengagement and re-engagement (cf. Colley, 2012).

Interestingly, then, the findings suggest that illusio can offer an extended appreciation of the adverse effects of field participation or lack of. For example, not everyone wants to, or in some cases, needs to play the game. Indeed, moral dilemmas, unhappiness and even illness can occur (Colley & Guéry, 2015; cf. Roderick et al., 2017). Thus agents can leave workplaces and professions altogether as well as be driven out due to their ‘lack of fit’ (e.g. Angus’ former colleague), or feeling of being ‘out of kilter’ (e.g. Colin) with what is of value and at stake in the field (cf. Colley, 2012). Thinking with illusio highlights the importance of exploring coach educators’ emotional involvement and agency, as social conditions and structures will not always determine behaviours, cognition and intrinsic values (e.g. caring and emotions) (Watts, 2020). Clearly, the data presented further highlight how coach educators operated in ‘a field of struggles’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 101), and considering their vital roles and contributions to coaching and the future of coaching, their voices, and realities warrant more attention.

The limitations of the research include that the study involved just 16 UK-based coach educators using a single methodological approach (see Smith & Sparkes, 2016) and did not incorporate observations of the participants’ interactions within the sub-field (Bourdieu, 2000). In addition, the difficulties in adopting a reflexive position (Smith & McGannon, 2018; Wacquant, 1989), and the co-constructive nature of interviews and their interpretation (see Sparkes & Smith, 2014) need to be recognised.

Conclusion

This is one of the first studies to investigate coach educators’ realities, challenges and workplace relationships in a range of sports. In doing so it has also given voice to coach educators in sports that rarely feature in empirical enquiry. The findings revealed that coach educators’ experiences can and do differ between sports and SGBs and that operating in smaller SGBs appeared to be somewhat less restrictive and more enjoyable. Nonetheless, across all SGBs, logistical and relational challenges were evident. These included concerns around job security, acceptance, compliance, pressures to pass coach learners, courses being too easy, and the perceived ‘abilities’ and ‘attitudes’ of some coach learners they felt compelled to pass. There was also uneasiness around working unsociable hours, remuneration, and apprehension over questioning methods and those in hierarchy (notably in larger SGBs). The present findings reaffirm that coach educators are a medium for the reproduction of coach education (cf. Cushion et al., 2017; Watts, 2020), but also enhance our understanding and add to previous research concerning coach educators’ frustrations, compliance and practice (e.g. Allanson et al., 2019; see also Piggott, 2012).

Importantly, the research has also demonstrated in very particular terms why coach education needs to be examined with coach educators and why social structures, forces and agency should be acknowledged. Such examination offers a more holistic understanding of the complexities coach educators can face and helps to further unpack and explain why coach educators can often be compliant to assist with their acceptance, reputations, and careers in coach education and coaching more broadly. Ultimately, coach educators perform a vital role and require greater empirical attention, support, care, and above all, need a voice. Specifically, future scholarship needs to appreciate the coach educator as a person and explore their crucial role and realities in a more personal and sophisticated way. Consequently, illusio could be an interesting concept to draw on in future coach education and coach educator research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.