Sports coaching science in Brazil

Introduction

Although the study of sports coaching in Brazil is not a new phenomenon, it has recently witnessed a not insignificant upsurge. Subsequently, this special issue of Sports Coaching Review is a welcome opportunity for some Brazilian researchers to present their work on coaching and coach education. Brazil is a large country, with sizeable cultural diversity and socio-economic inequality, which results in considerable heterogeneity among sports practice contexts. Subsequently, a sociocultural approach to the study of coaching offers much promise as an area of scholarly investigation. This is because it holds the potential to better understand the different contexts within which sports practice is located; differences that include the cultural features of various regions or groups complete with their competencies, preferences and goals. A principal challenge for Brazilian scholars then is to describe and understand this diversity. The subsequent aim of this special issue is to offer an overview of sports coaching studies in Brazil; presenting research in terms of its current condition and future trajectory.

Coaching as a more holistic and social practice

The past 15 years has witnessed a considerable growth in coaching research (Tozetto et al., 2015) from a number of diverse theoretical and empirical perspectives (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004). Such work was initially built on functionalist notions (Cushion & Jones, 2014), considering knowledge as something neutral, clean and sequential; to be simply given by the teacher or coach and unproblematically absorbed by athletes (Potrac & Cassidy, 2006). From such a viewpoint, coaches were viewed as mere technicians involved in the transfer of knowledge (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2009). This perspective adopted a largely rationalistic bio-scientific epistemology based on physiological, psychological, biomechanical and nutritional knowledge (Jones, 2007; Potrac, Brewer, Jones, Armour, & Hoff, 2000). In more recent times, has been made that because sport is a plural and heterogeneous phenomenon present in several kinds of social environments (Marques, 2015), it needs to be analysed through a sociological lens (Cushion & Jones, 2006; Jones & Turner, 2006). Here, sports coaching has been portrayed as complex, interdisciplinary and collective (Potrac et al., 2000), constantly shaped by, whilst also shaping, the culture which houses it (Bourdieu, 1988). It is a practice which is both seemingly common, while also manifestly different depending on the culture, expectations and social positions of the agents involved (Bourdieu, 1978).

Following such a premise, such an approach to coaching recognises the importance of cultural and social relationships within the process (Cassidy et al., 2009). Subsequently, the coach is viewed as a person with multiple dimensions operating within given structural constraints in a dynamic social environment. Coaching, in turn, is considered to involve countless interactions between and among coaches, players, activities and other interested parties, all shaping the context within which individual athletes train and perform (Matthews, Fleming, & Jones, 2013). As stated by Cassidy et al. (2009), coaching involves knowledge and consideration of the subject matter knowledge, of pedagogy, of self and of context. It is a view that has gathered credence, so much so that the focus of research for many coaching scholars now lies on the complex micro-interactive educational relationships between a coach and athlete (Jones, Armour, & Potrac, 2002). This is a relationship founded on both implicit and explicit interactions where teaching and learning is not easily separated (Barker-Ruchti, Rynne, Lee, & Barker, 2014; Jones, 2007; Wikeley & Bullock, 2006). Because of this, each sporting and related coaching practice consists of a distinct learning culture (Barker-Ruchti & Schubring, 2016; Barker-Ruchti, Barker, Rynne, & Lee, 2016). In other words, each act or enactment of coaching is influenced by a specific sociocultural context which incorporates the habitus of many social agents (Penney & McMahon, 2016).

Thinking about coaching through the sociocultural lens involves reflecting, not only about what coaches do but also why and how they coach as they do (Gilbourne, Marshall, & Knowles, 2013; Potrac et al., 2000). Such considerations demand a contextual insight which takes into account both elements of structure and agency and, in particular, how that agency can be expanded towards sporting ends. For many, sports coaches are not only responsible for directing practice and training sessions, but also for the general education and well-being of athletes. In this respect, it has been argued that they also act as quasi-teachers, counsellors and coordinators (Penney, 2006; Potrac et al., 2000). Consequently, coaches need to be able to recognise how individual differences, such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and age (among others), can shape the athlete as a person and as a performer (Matthews et al., 2013). In other words, to consider the coaching role as a broader more holistic one than often portrayed (Cassidy et al., 2009), coaching thus, has come to be perceived as more than just “sports teaching”; rather, the coach is now seen as a guide through complex sociocultural learning-related processes (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2006; Matthews et al., 2013).

Sports coaching: the Brazilian context

In Brazil, sport practices are a legal right, guaranteed to all citizens as indicated in the National Constitution. It is a condition which, due to the large cultural diversity and inequality within the country, gives rise to a great plurality of meaning and contexts.

In this respect, the Brazilian Ministry of Sports recognises four kinds of sport streams (Brasil, 1998a):

(a)	Educational sport – practised within educational systems, thus taking issue with selectivity and over-competitiveness, whilst aiming to develop the whole person for better citizenship.
(b)	Participation sport – operated on a voluntary basis, with the goal to integrate sports into a lifestyle; it also focuses on health promotion and environmental preservation.
(c)	Performance sport – the emphasis here lies on achieving positive competitive results and integrate people and communities inside the country and abroad. This can be organised and practised on a professional or non-professional basis.
(d)	Development sport: aquisition of sports knowledge that allows technical competence in sports intervention. The aim is to promote the qualitative and quantitative improvement of sports practice in recreational, competitive and high level contexts.

Although being enshrined in Federal Law 9.615/1998, this typology isn’t a consensus among Brazilian scholars (Marques, 2015), but still drives the funding and management of sport policy in Brazil (Milistetd, Trudel, Mesquita, & Nascimento, 2014). Similarly, sport coaching is a well-established legally regulated profession in Brazil (Brasil, 1998b). Indeed, since 1998, coaches are required to hold a Physical Education degree irrespective of the contexts in which they work (Milistetd et al., 2014). This situation approaches sports coaching education processes to the academic field, regarding some particularities.

Since 2004, the national guidelines for Physical Education degree proposes two career pathways: a) Physical Education teacher education major; b) bachelor’s degree focused on three specific areas – health, leisure and sport performance (allows the bachelor in Physical Education to work in all of them, except as Physical Education teacher in school). This kind of formal education offers coaches knowledge of several theoretical frameworks from different fields of knowledge. More specific and deeper formal education is also offered by some sports federations (Milistetd et al., 2014; Nunomura, Oliveira, Roble, & Carbinato, 2012), although some exceptions to this structure exist (e.g. that related to football [see the article by Ricci, Moreira, Yoshimura and Pontoglio within this special issue]). Additionally, all coaches who were employed at least two years before the Law 9696/1998, and didn’t hold the Physical Education degree, just can work as sport coach if conclude a preparatory course organised by the National Council of Physical Education (CONFEF). A license is offered to act just in one single sport, that have already experienced before the law (Almeida, Gutierrez, & Montagner, 2009).

Traditionally, investigations into sports coaching in Brazil have been undertaken by scholars linked to sport pedagogy. This has involved such work concerned with teaching interventions, exploring the more general sport experience, and the evaluation of sport practices with different manifestations and meanings (Galatti, Reverdito, Scaglia, Paes, & Seoane, 2014). Not unsurprisingly then, much of Brazilian coaching studies have been rooted in the educational and human sciences. Hence, they have been largely founded on the premise that sport/coaching is

(a)	Complex (Menezes, 2012; Santana, 2005).
(b)	A sociocultural phenomenon, structured in the interaction of cultural contexts and the perceptions, meanings and singularities of the participants (habitus) (Marques, 2015; Marques, Almeida, & Gutierrez, 2007; Paes, 2001; Reverdito & Scaglia, 2009).
(c)	An activity that demands principles – teaching sport for all; teaching well sport for all; teaching more than sport; teaching to like and enjoy sport (Freire, 1998).

Considering that learning and culture are relational (Barker-Ruchti et al., 2016), and that learning is an embodiment of culture, it is thus considered that sport pedagogy, and hence coaching, must address the relationship between human, self and society (Potrac et al., 2000). Echoing recent conceptualisations world-wide, this humanistic approach to coaching studies is also evident in Brazil (i.e. the belief that coaching is, above all a social practice). Consequently, although no doubt more work needs to be done, a common base of understanding is increasingly in place.

As previously stated, this special issue of Sports Coaching Review aims to present some coaching related studies developed by Brazilian researchers from the fields of education, sport pedagogy and sociology of sport. The diversity of topics include;

(a)	Coaching scenarios: from work in schools (Viotto Filho, 2016; Lima, Kiouranis, & Marchi Júnior, 2016); in elite sport (Bortoleto & Schiavon, 2016; Gutierrez et al., 2016; Oliveira, 2016); and in youth sport (Galatti et al., 2016; Hirama & Montagner, 2016; Leonardo Filho, 2016; Reverdito et al., 2016).
(b)	Coaching as a profession: here investigations explore the employment and legal struggles embarked upon by coaches (Ricci et al., 2016); and the reasons for becoming a coach (Carbinatto et al., 2016).
(c)	Pedagogical perspectives: this covers procedures (Bortoleto & Schiavon, 2016; Lima, et al., 2016; Oliveira, 2016; Galatti et al., 2016) and social relationships (Leonardo Filho, 2016; Hirama & Montagner, 2016; Viotto Filho, 2016; Reverdito et al., 2016; Nista-Piccolo & Sobreira, 2016) in relation to coaching.
(d)	Coach learning: includes an examination of formal coach education (Milistetd et al., 2016), and the influences of sociocultural profile and personal experience on coach development (Gutierrez et al., 2016).

The range of approaches or topics related to sports coaching in Brazil does not end with what we have presented here. Our hope was merely to show some of the diversity and richness that surround the investigations in sports coaching in our country. We believe that the invited authors provide insights, food for thought, and much inspiration for further studies in the field. Furthermore, the authors reveal a contemporary perspective on this thematic taking into consideration coaching as a socio-cultural, complex and educational practice.

Finally, we would like to thank the Editor-in-chief of Sports Coaching Review, Robyn Jones, for the invitation to produce this special issue and for the opportunity to highlight some of the on-going sports coaching research in Brazil. We hope you enjoy it.

Renato Francisco Rodrigues Marques, Myrian Nunomura and Rafael Pombo Menezes
School of Physical Education and Sport of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Brazil