Exploring Irish high-performance sports coaches’ understanding and application of reflective practice

ABSTRACT

The role and efficacy of reflective practice in sport continues to be critiqued, despite the increasing research evidence in its support. This study explored the understanding of Irish high-performance sport coaches in terms of a) purposes, b) processes, c) enablers and barriers, and d) knowledge sources of reflective practice. Semi-structured interview data were acquired from Irish male rugby union (n = 5) and hockey (n = 4) coaches for analysis. The participants’ reflective practice-based descriptions revealed findings related to the four inquiry criteria. First, reflective practice incorporated purposes such as problem solving and contribution towards various aspects of learning and development for the coach and their athletes. Second, reflective practice processes were cyclical and included questioning, self-questioning, and feedback. Third, the nature of high-performance sport involved several enablers (mentors and video-based technology) and barriers (time, results, and tactical and player demands). Fourth, the knowledge sources (i.e. pedagogical approaches) towards reflective practice may have limited certain participants’ ability to become critically reflective practitioners. The findings have educational implications for preparing coaches to deal with the challenges related to working in a highly demanding, results-dependent, and high-pressure sport environment.

KEYWORDS:

• Elite sport
• reflection
• learning
• development
• education

Introduction

Since the initial discussions of reflective practice within the sport domain (Knowles et al., 2001), subsequent studies have systematically reviewed and critically analysed the reflective practice literature (Cushion, 2018; Huntley et al., 2014). Consequently, various approaches have been employed to explore reflective practice in the sport environment (cf., Gilbert & Trudel, 2001; Taylor et al., 2015), which indicated that reflective practice can assist in the learning and development of coaches (C.J. Cushion et al., 2003; Cassidy et al., 2008; Gallimore et al., 2014) and athletes (Richards et al., 2009).

Despite the increasing research evidence in its support, the role and efficacy of reflective practice in sport continues to be critiqued (Huntley et al., 2014). For instance, ‘direct links to the development of coaching effectiveness are limited’ (Cushion et al., 2010, p. 123) and a lack of understanding exists regarding reflective practice purposes (Huntley et al., 2014; Knowles et al., 2014) and barriers to systematic reflective practice (Burt & Morgan, 2014). In particular, ‘reflection and reflective practice are taken-for-granted’ (Cushion, 2018, p. 83) and the thought processes often labelled as ‘reflection’ seldom represent actual reflective practice without a complete comprehension of the problems of following such an approach (Cropley & Hanton, 2011, p. 123). Moreover, reflective practice is frequently integrated into professional sports qualifications without considering the learning means and methods utilised for effective reflective practice in this environment (Cropley & Hanton, 2011)

Mann et al. (2009) and Marshall (2019) suggested that specific contexts must be considered when investigating how practitioners understand and utilize reflective practice. Coaching in high-performance sport can be described as extremely demanding, involving a highly complex collection of dynamic practices to ensure improved or sustained performance towards the identified goals (Lyons et al., 2012). Moreover, high-performing sport environments involve considerable preparation, training, and extensive investment of time and resources (Rynne & Mallett, 2014), which drives greater expectations, pressure, and development demands from the athletes in comparison to alternative coaching environments. Although certain studies have investigated sport coaches’ understanding and application of reflective practice (e.g. Lyons et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2015), the current study advances the reflective practice research by utilising an under-researched high-performance sport environment to explore a more holistic collection of the aforementioned critiques. Specifically, no studies to our knowledge have explored Irish high-performance coaches’ understanding, utilization, or application of reflective practice. Moreover, a scarcity of research exists concerning an understanding of how national sport governing bodies, associations, higher education institutions and coach education providers design, deliver and assess the concept of reflective practice (Huntley et al., 2014). If high-performance sport systems want to position themselves to compete within the world’s sporting elite, support systems such as coach education (Bertz & Purdy, 2011; Sherwin et al., 2017) utilising more appropriate pedagogical approaches to reflective practice are required to develop coaches. This research can underpin future developments in coach education that can optimise the systematic use of reflective practice within high-performance sport. Consequently, this research explores the reflective practice knowledge sources of Irish high-performance coaches and their understanding of the purposes, processes, and enablers and barriers of reflective practice.

Methods

Participants

In line with recommendations (Mead et al., 2016; Rynne & Mallett, 2014; Taylor et al., 2015) we utilised criterion-based sampling techniques (Skinner et al., 2021), to purposely select high-performance coaches who were currently coaching elite athletes (Erickson et al., 2007). Participants adhering to the inclusion criteria received an introductory telephone call and/or email from the first author that provided an initial overview of the research and an invitation to participate. Aligning with the inclusion criteria adopted by Sherwin et al. (2017), all the participants possessed more than ten years of coaching experience in their sport and were currently coaching for more than four hours of on-pitch training per week, excluding video reviews, session preparation, or meetings. Among those satisfying the criteria, nine male high-performance coaches from rugby union (n = 5) and hockey (n = 4) agreed to participate. At the time of the interviews, three hockey coaches were coaching at an international (U16 & U18) level, and the fourth hockey coach – a former senior international player – possessed prior experience of coaching at an international (U18) level. All five rugby union coaches were coaching within a professional Irish rugby union club, and one of them was the current head coach at an international (U20) level. In terms of formal coaching qualifications, three of hockey participants possessed the Hockey Ireland Level 2 (i.e. second highest qualification in Irish field hockey) and one possessed the FIH (Federation of International Hockey) which is the highest qualification in World field hockey. Four of rugby union participants possessed the IRFU (Irish Rugby Football Union) Stage 4 (i.e. designed for Head Coaches working with senior club and representative teams) and one possessed the IRFU Stage 5 (i.e. designed for Head Coaches working with advanced adult and representative teams).

One unique aspect of many sports in Ireland concerns its amateur nature, where despite operating at an elite level, many coaches are volunteers and have full-time jobs (Martin et al., 2018). In Irish field hockey, many high-performance coaches are employed on a voluntary or semi-professional basis and their contact time with athletes at international level is limited to training camps (Rees et al., 2021). Moreover, because of the limited number of support staff employed within high-performance field hockey teams, considerable pressure and expectations are placed on them (Rees et al., 2021). Only one of the hockey coaches interviewed was a full-time high performance coach with the remaining three having careers away from sport. These three hockey coaches had to take time off work when coaching with national teams and competing in European and International competitions. Two of the rugby union coaches were employed as full-time high-performance coaches with the remaining three having careers away from sport.

Interview guide and procedure

A semi-structured interview guide was developed from the problems identified within the reflective practice literature, which was subsequently refined after pilot interviews (not included) with two professional rugby union coaches. The same inclusion criteria utilised for selecting the participants was adopted in selecting two coaches for pilot interviews. The first author conducted the interviews and followed a conversational and flexible approach involving clarification and elaboration probes (Skinner et al., 2021). This flexibility allowed the participants to speak freely, digress appropriately from the interview guide, and consequently enhanced the fluency of the interview, thereby enabling the acquirement of rich data and ensuring a systematic process of consistent data acquisition across all interviews (Skinner et al., 2021). The first author contacted the potential participants via email to explain the current research aims and ascertain their willingness to participate. All the participants completed informed consent forms and received information concerning the ethical considerations, issues of confidentiality, and assurances of anonymity. All the interviews were conducted in person at a location selected by the participant and were digitally recorded.

Data analysis

The qualitative stance of ‘familiarization’ was adopted post transcription, which involved listening to the audio files and multiple readings of the verbatim transcripts to accurately comprehend the data (Skinner et al., 2021). The interview transcripts were inductively analysed using first-level descriptive codes to capture the essence of the data (Skinner et al., 2021). While the study was guided by a priori research foci, we allowed the empirical material to drive first-cycle coding. Then, second-cycle coding involved ‘prioritising, integrating, synthesising’ and further analysis for contradictory perspectives, multiple meanings, and novel insights (Skinner et al., 2021, p. 183). This coding process resulted in identifying first order themes based on the primary-cycle codes generated from participant responses which attend to the research aims driving the study. Subsequently, conceptual second-cycle coding involved interpretation and theoretical considerations (Skinner et al., 2021).

Trustworthiness

Following transcription, the participants were emailed a copy of the transcribed interview and invited to make any comments or reflections. In terms of credibility, the adoption of peer debriefing, or member participant validation, (Skinner et al., 2021) ensured that the meaning of what was stated during the interviews was accurately transcribed by the researcher, thus enhancing confirmability (Smith & McGannon, 2018). No discrepancies were reported by the participants following the member checking process. The first author’s knowledge, experience, and insider status as a coach and former elite athlete enabled access and facilitated the establishment of rapport and trust with the participants. All the authors acted as critical friends (Smith & McGannon, 2018) with constant engagement in a process of reflexivity and critical dialogue, which was designed to challenge the analytical coding process and scrutinise every interpretation to validate the data (Skinner et al., 2021).

Findings

The analysis of the interview data yielded the identification of several first-order themes within the four reflective practice categories (Table 1), which are presented herein using representative verbatim statements.

Table 1. Reflective practice categories and first-order themes.

Reflective Practice Categories	First-Order Themes
Purposes	Problem Solving Learning and Development
Processes	Cyclical Questioning and Self-Questioning Feedback
Enablers and Barriers	Enablers: Mentors Video-based Technology Barriers: Time Results Tactical Demands Player Demands
Knowledge Sources	Formal: Coach Education Teaching Degrees Informal: Seminars

Reflective practice purposes

Within the category of ‘purposes’, the themes identified were problem solving and learning and development. First, all the participants expressed a belief that reflective practice is a core (and frequently used) component of their general coaching practice, and they categorically use reflective practice for problem solving. With emphasis, Coach 2 stated:

Reflection is so important and if you don’t reflect on a number of different levels about how nuanced sport is and team sport particularly, then you’re constantly facing different problems and you can solve them only by reflecting, so I don’t see how you could even call yourself a coach or be in coaching if you don’t reflect; it just wouldn’t work.

All the participants identified that they generally favoured solving problems independently, unless they are a part of a collaborative coaching team or there is ‘a big issue’ (Coach 9) that they cannot solve on their own. Second, all the participants identified that reflective practice facilitates the learning and development of both coach and athlete. For instance, Coach 4 stated:

Ultimately, I reflect so that I can learn more about how things should be done best and how I can improve, so that the players enjoy themselves and are learning what they need to learn.

Reflective practice processes

The themes identified within this category of ‘processes’ were cyclical, questioning and self-questioning, and feedback. First, all the participants described that they adopted a cyclical reflective process that is initiated by a particular coaching event. When probed, the participants cited coaching events as significant incidents during both training sessions and competitive games, which consequently triggered reflective practice by identifying areas for subsequent improvement. Participants noted that coaching events facilitated the identification of problems within a particular training session, and their attempts to address problems involved planning specific practices for the subsequent coaching session. For instance, Coach 6 described this evaluation process of classifying beneficial occurrences and stated:

Say, ok, if that [evaluation process] worked well, I might do that again next week you know, and I think your future planning, well my future planning anyway, revolves around what I’ve done in the previous session, finding things that maybe the players haven’t quite understood and thinking about how we can address it going forward. So, I always ask myself, what exercises do we need to do to help?

All the participants believed that this cyclical reflective practice process improved their understanding of planning specific team activities in training sessions to achieve the desired results. Upon probing, the participants elaborated how this process involved a constant cycle of reflection-on-action that focussed on specific events in coaching sessions. Moreover, all of them identified that reflective practice and subsequent session planning are inextricably linked. As such, Coach 7 noted: ‘A big part of how I plan future sessions, involves reflecting on what has happened and what needs to improve’. This sentiment was further echoed by Coach 1, who stated that

There is no point analysing a game or a training session and then just leaving it there. It is about taking what you’ve seen and finding ways of making it better in the next session and ultimately in the next game, so I take a lot of time planning based on that.

Second, the participants affirmed that the use of ‘questioning’ as an aspect of their reflective practice process enabled engagement and adoption of reflection among athletes, which enhanced their learning and development. In terms of athlete learning and development, Coach 5 explained that he would direct questions towards his players during and after training sessions, ‘One thing I’d always reflect on is how was my questioning, because I believe questioning is very important’. Additionally, the participants expressed that the adoption of self-questioning facilitated their learning and development by analysing and understanding a coaching session, regarding which Coach 2 commented:

I try to ask myself ‘Did I get the content covered? Was the approach I took the right one? What did the players get out of the session? Why did a particular aspect work well or work badly?’

Third, all the participants reported the feedback mechanism involving both players and fellow coaches for specific coaching events, which facilitated and assisted them to evaluate the effectiveness of their reflective practice process. All the participants’ identified an open-mindedness towards incorporating player feedback as a component of their reflective practice process, which was inextricably linked to their self-confidence and coaching experience. This was demonstrated by an experienced coach, Coach 8:

I guess now I’m much more comfortable as a coach and I understand that coaching is complex, but that’s OK, it’s better to get feedback from a player and work on it than close yourself off and pretend everything is OK or it’s not your problem.

Moreover, all the participants identified that they were more restricted in requesting feedback from players and coaches early in their careers while establishing themselves as high-performance coaches, thereby implying that experience could impinge the adoption of feedback as an aspect of their reflective practice process. There was a tension between requesting feedback and the level of confidence required for coaching in this high-performance environment. The fear and potential insecurity encountered by less experienced coaches was expertly communicated by Coach 7:

I suppose at the beginning of anybody’s coaching career, there is that little sense of insecurity and needing to look like you have all the answers, and I think that at that point it’s more difficult to ask for help. But then, as you become more confident in your own knowledge and ability, you also become more confident in not knowing things and getting advice and feedback from other people.

Reflective practice enablers and barriers

Numerous enablers (i.e. mentors and video-based technology) and barriers (i.e. time, results, and tactical and player demands) were associated with participants’ engagement in and adoption of reflective practice for high-performance sport.

Enablers

The participants perceived mentors as sources of alternative opinions with expert knowledge in specific areas, an important reflective practice enabler, and were considered exceptionally insightful for understanding particularly challenging situations. In this regard, Coach 5 stated:

If I have a big problem, I’d probably ring the mentor that I mentioned because he’s quite methodical in the way he would think it through. I suppose as I think about it, I try to go to people whose opinions I’d really value, so people that may have been around the block and had that experience or coached or played at a high level and been successful.

Seeking advice from mentors with extensive coaching experience in high-performance sport was deemed important by all the participants to enable them in facilitating reflective practice and managing the complex, problematic nature of high-performance sport. For instance, Coach 9 stated:

Nobody has all the answers, and I think, if we can talk and communicate, we can improve, get new ideas, and you can get a different perspective on how to deal with something or how to do things better.

Although all the participants considered access to mentors as important, the rugby union participants placed considerable significance on working with several coaches and support staff as part of the backroom team. Consequently, review meetings and post-coaching session reflections often involved discussion and debate involving a significant number of backroom staff. However, the hockey coaches experienced moderate isolation in terms of support and identified that the lack of financial resources inhibited the opportunity to employ an extensive number of backroom staff, which limited the potential to engage in reflective group conversations.

Second, eight out of the nine participants reported using video-based technology (e.g. ‘Go-Pro’) in reviewing and analysing competitive games and training sessions, which was perceived as a vital aspect of their reflective practice. Video-based technology aided players and coaches to recall vital learning moments and events more accurately. Regarding coach recall of learning moments and events, one rugby union participant commented, ‘The video is key. We try to record every session and break it down into its various aspects and reflect on that’. In terms of player recall regarding key moments and events, a hockey coach described that video-based technology facilitated in ‘challenging the players’ and providing both general and specific ‘types’ of ‘feedback to them’. For instance, Coach 2 described an instance in which he wore a GoPro or ‘1st person camera’ during training sessions to ‘let the players have a look at what we were doing and for me to have a look at the content afterwards to see how they were performing’. He further stated that he wears the GoPro and has an additional camera set up on the sideline during training sessions, so he can:

Have a look at the behaviours, so what’s the body language like, how are you talking to players and more to see what we are picking up on and giving feedback on. So, is it their attitude and behaviour or is it points of performance in terms of the accuracy of what they’re doing technically?

Barriers

First, all the participants identified time as the primary factor hindering their engagement with reflective practice and expressed an intent to engage in reflection more frequently in an ‘ideal world’. For instance, Coach 3 stated: ‘If I was to be a full-time coach, I think I’d engage in a lot more of that tangible written reflection, because I’d be able to put aside the time to sit down and do it’. Similarly, Coach 4 stated:

But also, in terms of time, it makes a big difference when you are coaching full-time and that is your job and you have some time to reflect, whereas in the club, it is part-time and everybody has a day-job and it’s not your full-time gig, you know, and I know that’s not right but that’s the reality at the moment! hahahaha

Second, at this elite level, there is a pressure to deliver results. One rugby coach stated that ‘you are expected to consistently get good results’, whereas a hockey coach stated, ‘but I do think the level plays a part and as the level goes up and the pressure of results increase, engaging in reflection becomes more and more necessary in terms of dealing with those demands’. Coping with the pressures to achieve results is exacerbated when facing superior opposition and necessitates reflective practice.

A lot of the time when we’re in Irish setups, because we’re coming into tournaments as one of the lower-ranked nations, so we need to be able to cope. You’re certainly pushed to plan out and get more out of yourselves in terms of reflection.

Third, all the participants believed that reflective practice becomes more important because of elite-level tactical demands. For example, Coach 8 stated that ‘At international level versus club level you might face, better players, better systems … which means you’re trying to deal with things you might not have seen before’. Coach 4 provided an insight into the challenging and complex nature of coaching in high-performance sport in comparison to other less elite levels and stated, ‘I would tend to think that the higher up the level you go, the more important it [reflective practice] becomes, because the tactical challenges you face are often more difficult as a coach and there is more on the line’. Participants identified the use of planning and reflective practice to cope with these tactical challenges. As such, Coach 7 stated:

When you get into an international tournament situation the planning and reflection are almost one of the same because you’re reflecting on oppositions even before you’ve played them and looking at how we’ll be able to cope.

Similarly, Coach 7 stated:

I also think that the level you coach at, changes the way you might reflect. For example, with the Irish team, it’s a completely different mindset that the group are in and you’re definitely pushed more to reflect on games and practices of what you’re doing in terms of setting up teams and when you’re looking at opposition. There’s a lot more intricacy into planning things out.

Fourth, in terms of player demands, the participants implied at the existence of a greater demand from players ‘at this level’ (i.e. high-performance) for personal, specific, and immediate feedback regarding aspects of their performance. In this context, Coach 6 stated:

The higher up you go … the more reflection you have to be doing. There’s a little bit more pressure on coaches [in terms of] your individual coaching, there’s more pressure from a player’s point of view. The players will come looking for feedback, and I think you’ve got to have reflected on the session. I think that at this level, there’s a certain pressure that drives you to be a bit more reflective.

In terms of the demands placed on coaches, the differences between coaching and the importance of reflective practice at an international level and less elite levels was adeptly expressed by a hockey coach (Coach 4) as

Also, in terms of man management, it can get trickier because you’re dealing with egos, and at times, more challenging behaviour, and how you deal with those situations takes a lot of thinking and working out.

Reflective practice knowledge sources

All the participants identified that their reflective practice knowledge emanated from a combination of formal (i.e. coach education, teaching degrees) and informal (i.e. seminars) sources.

Formal

The first of these sources was from formal coach education courses conducted by an Irish national sports organization. For instance, Coach 7 noted, ‘On my Level 2 [2^nd highest national coaching award in hockey], there was some sort of reflection or evaluation of the session I did, but it was only the one session’. He continued, ‘We need to develop it more in terms of teaching it through coach education, certainly in hockey’. Similarly, Coach 5 commented, ‘At one of the courses I was on, they mentioned reflective practice alright, and that as coaches we should be reflecting, but it didn’t go into a lot of detail on it’.

Four of the participants (two hockey, two rugby union) had obtained a bachelor’s degree in teaching from various Irish universities for employment as secondary school (i.e. tertiary level) teachers. Three of these participants were still working as teachers, whereas the other was recently appointed as a full-time, high-performance coach. All four coaches realised that the reflective practice component associated with teacher training education had significantly benefited their understanding and subsequent application of reflective practice. For instance, one of these four coaches stated:

After each lesson, you’d have to reflect on it and fill out these big appraisal forms and it used to drive me bananas. But looking back now, I see massive benefits because they actually made me really reflect on what I did, and it helped me develop those skills at a young age.

Coach 7 reinforced this idea and stated:

Obviously, reflection would have been a big part of my teaching degree. I had to do a lot of formal written reflection, particularly during teaching practice, so that idea of prepare, deliver, reflect, and evaluate is just built into me, I suppose.

Upon further questioning, these four coaches indicated that they applied a structured written approach to reflective practice during the initial period of their coaching careers, which was based on the experiences of their bachelor’s degree in teaching. Nonetheless, they further reported that reflective practice is currently less prominent in their coaching practice owing to the time constraints as well as being proficient at reflecting without requiring to write.

Informal

The participants recalled familiarity with reflective practice based on promotions through seminars conducted by Irish sports organizations and/or sports clubs, where they were employed. Coach 1 explained: ‘They [National Sports Association] held a kind of seminar for all representative coaches which we thought was going to be something pitch based, but actually it was an introduction to reflective practice and how to use it in coaching’. Upon further inquiry regarding the content of this ‘introduction’, the same coach reported doubts concerning his understanding and method of applying reflective practice as a component of his coaching practice. He further stated, ‘But you know I’m still not sure if what I’m doing is the right thing, like there’s no real structure to it, but at the same time I don’t think you can coach without it’.

Similarly, Coach 2 narrated that the ‘coach development personnel’ at the rugby union club had identified the importance of adopting reflective practice and stated: ‘Reflection is something they’re big on in here [club] at the moment, encouraging us to be reflective, we’ve done a bit of stuff on it’. However, when probed further, this coach admitted that his understanding of reflective practice was still somewhat ambiguous and stated:

But it’s a very loose term. I’d like to have a bit more structure … and to have a bit more confirmation as to ‘Reflection is this, this and this’ and getting to know what the process really involves.

Discussion

Reflective practice incorporated purposes such as problem solving and contributed towards various aspects of learning and development for the coach and athletes (Huntley et al., 2014: Knowles et al., 2006; Lyons et al., 2012; Richards et al., 2009). The participants utilised video-based technology (Mead et al., 2016; Middlemas & Harwood, 2018) and sought advice from fellow coaches (Mesquita et al., 2014) and mentors who they considered as more experienced and knowledgeable (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001) to assist them in solving problems (Huntley et al., 2014; Knowles et al., 2006; Lyons et al., 2012; Richards et al., 2009). Several reflective practice enablers were identified as facilitating the participants’ adoption of reflective practice. While the trait of open-mindedness was evident from all the responses and constituted an important personal attribute that enabled engagement in reflective practice (Dewey, 1934), the participants also exhibited a willingness to listen, seek advice, and accept feedback (Nash et al., 2017) from both players (Gallimore et al., 2014) and other coaches (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001). Interestingly, despite the high level of experience of the coaches interviewed, coaches with less experience encountered more challenges regarding their willingness to encourage and accept player feedback as a component of their reflective practice. In contrast, coaches with vast experience, as one coach highlighted, seemed more comfortable with ‘not knowing things’ at every instance.

Numerous barriers impacted the participants’ adoption of reflective practice (Burt & Morgan, 2014). Certainly, sustaining success in high-performance sports is time-consuming, results driven, involves considerable tactical preparation and, player demands. Though challenging, participants identified that these barriers necessitated reflective practice. In addition to the time constraints and acknowledging the context and demands of high-performance sport, the fact that some participants were not full-time coaches could be challenging, because learning and professional development is a key responsibility of the coach (Armour, 2010). In comparison to the rugby union coaches, the lack of back-room staff for hockey coaches limited their adoption of post-session group reflection and debriefing (Middlemas et al., 2018), and they perceived themselves to be professionally isolated (Rynne & Mallett, 2014) which is probably why they sourced more experienced and knowledgeable mentors to provide support and discussion that was designed to enhance their learning and development.

The reflective practice cycle employed by this cohort of high-performance coaches is indicative of and resonates with reflective practice models (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001) and Schön’s (1987) theoretical concepts of reflective practice. For example, the participants engaged in retrospective reflection-on-action (i.e. post-games and training sessions) and reflective conversations (i.e. revolving spiral of appreciation and re-appreciation) with fellow coaches and mentors that primarily focused on evaluation, and subsequent planning and modification of sport-specific technical activities of training sessions and match preparation. Certainly, the participants adoption of ‘questioning’ and ‘self-questioning’ (O’Connor et al., 2021) facilitated the reflective practice process, improved self-awareness, and contributed towards enhancing the learning, development, and performance aspects of both athletes and coaches. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that the participants adopted, or understood the importance of how, multiple cycles of reflective conversations with critical-minded peers (Knowles et al., 2014) depicting a more focussed, non-technical and critical analysis of their specific coaching behaviours using video-based technology (Partington et al., 2015) can impact the performance outcomes of players – a process perceived as extremely crucial by the coaches. The core of reflective practice involves devising a plan that is orientated towards future action (Schön, 1987), and therefore, when the planning of actual coaching behaviours is not conducted, we argue that the participants may be engaging only in the mere evaluation of their coaching behaviour rather than critically reflecting on them. Moreover, there was no evidence indicating that the participants engaged in observations of other coaches (Corsby & Jones, 2020), which is surprising, because expert coaches have identified the importance of observing various coaches from the same or other sports and reflecting on their practice to enhance their own learning and development (Mesquita et al., 2014). Surprisingly, there was no evidence to suggest that the participants adopted reflection-in-action (Schön, 1987).

When a practitioner reflects in action, or ‘in the midst of action’ (Schön, 1983), ‘thought processes that occurred in-action’ often remain ‘spontaneous and subconscious’ (Hughes et al., 2009: 379). Coaches may be unaware that they are reflecting in the moment (Hughes et al., 2009) or have difficulty bringing to the surface what is not conscious to them (Hall & Gray, 2016) unless, their thought process is triggered by ‘dilemmas of practice’ (Schön, 1983) such as coaching incidents, as evident in the findings. For example, one participant was consciously aware of their incompetence and openly acknowledged being confident ‘in not knowing things’ yet were aware of the need to further develop their coaching knowledge and skills by ‘seeking advice from other people’. However, the lack of evidence supporting reflection in action, is not unusual because, when considering learning models of unconscious incompetence through to unconscious competence (Howell, 1982) advanced practitioners, such as the participants are quite often ‘unconsciously competent’, suggesting that they are proficient yet unaware of their application of reflective practice.

Although this reflective practice cycle contained many elements of learning and reflective practice theory (Gibbs, 1988), it is doubtful if the participants engaged in the key process of critical reflection (Cushion et al., 2012; Knowles et al., 2001), involving continual self-reflection, evaluation, and questioning to explain their action and reasoning. This process is vital (Cunliffe, 2016) because knowledge is constructed by experimenting with novel and altered information (Schön, 1987). Critical reflection involves ‘active sense making’ (Mehan, 1992, p. 1) and dealing ‘consciously and expressly with the situations we find ourselves’ (Dewey, 1934, p. 264). Arguably, insufficient educational support and pedagogical approaches was provided to the participants on how future coaching practices remained ‘untouched by new knowledge and insight’ when they fail to critically reflect on their coaching behaviours (C.J. Cushion et al., 2003, p. 224).

Finally, in terms of knowledge sources, although the participants understood the ‘when to’ of reflective practice (Huntley et al., 2014, p. 874), it is argued that they may not have attained the complete benefits of the ‘how to’ and ‘what to’ purported in the reflective practice literature (Cropley & Hanton, 2011). Specifically, for certain participants, formal and informal knowledge sources were limited in developing critically reflective skills (Cropley et al., 2012; Knowles et al., 2005) or in enhancing their understanding and effective engagement of the reflective practice processes (Cropley et al., 2012). This is supported by the fact that the participants with third-level education degrees reported more significant benefits of their training in reflective practice and possessed a far deeper understanding and less ambiguity regarding the adoption and utilisation of reflective practice as a key mechanism for learning. Becoming a reflective practitioner entails consistent nurturing, and reflective practice should be implemented through an educational curriculum to enhance professional practice over time (C.J. Cushion et al., 2003; Mesquita et al., 2014) and cannot be learned from the knowledge sources identified by the participants.

Limitations and future research

The sample limitations (i.e. gender and the limited range of sports explored) can be offset by the highly specialised nature of the participants and their knowledge and experience with the current research topic. Owing to the limitations of the one-off retrospective interviews, we are aware that the participants’ understanding of the terms ‘reflection’ and ‘reflective practice’ does not necessarily indicate representative and consistent application of these practices within their surrounding contexts. Consequently, further research is suggested with a more gender-diversified, balanced sample of coaches and athletes belonging to a broader range of both team and individual sports regarding some of the more novel findings (e.g. managing challenging players and player egos).

Conclusion

Participants regarded themselves as reflective practitioners, who acknowledged the importance of reflective practice for enhancing aspects of their coaching practice, including the learning and development of their athletes. While reflective practice facilitated dealing with the highly demanding and challenging nature of high-performance sport, inadequate educational support was provided to develop the participants’ ability to critically reflect on their coaching behaviours. Therefore, coach-education providers should provide the theoretical frameworks, tools and guidance required for the complete development of these skills among coaches to enhance their ability to become critically reflective practitioners.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to offer special thanks to the participants who agreed to be interviewed for this study and the reviewers for their extremely helpful, insightful and supportive comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was not supported by any funding agency.

Notes on contributors

Simon Lowry

Simon Lowry is the Director of Sport & Hockey in a Dublin secondary school. He has completed a B.Comm (Int) and a MSc in Coaching Science in Sport, both at University College Dublin. He has completed the Level 2 Licence with Hockey Ireland and is completing the European Top Coach Program (TCP) with the European Hockey Federation. He is currently Head Coach of the Irish U18 Boys Hockey team.

Steve Swanson

Dr Steve Swanson is a Senior Lecturer in Sport Management in the Deakin Business School and Co-Director of the Centre for Sport Research at Deakin University, Australia. Formerly the Director of Sport Business and Leadership at Loughborough University London, UK, Dr Swanson’s research focuses on leadership, coaching, and well-being in the sport environment. His research has been funded by prestigious organisations such as the British Academy and the Olympic Studies Centre.

Seamus Kelly

Dr Seamus Kelly is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science at University College Dublin, Ireland. His research is predominantly qualitative and explores aspects of management in professional football and elite sport.