A legacy of CRiC special issue: engendering critical debate within sport coaching research

The legacy of CRiC: locating the special issue

In 2022, the Cluster for Research into Coaching (CRiC) was officially (re)launched as a society for coaching scholars, sport coaches, National Governing Bodies, and other related practitioners. The launch event held at Loughborough University emphasised CRiC’s aim to promote and support critical coaching research that interrogates, discusses and theorises the complexities of sport coaching relations and networks. However, CRiC has a much longer history of dissemination among all those interested in the study and doing of coaching,¹ with the CRiC conferences providing a critical space for sport coaching researchers from the UK, as well as colleagues from abroad, to share and discuss the latest trends within coaching research for the last decade. At a similar period to CRiC’s inception, Sports Coaching Review (SCR) was established as a central journal to the development of a critical body of knowledge in coaching. CRiC and SCR hold the mutual objectives of promoting interrogative research that engenders critical debate and, in doing so, they seek to support coaching research to a wide range of audiences.² Both CRiC and SCR, then, have provided a platform to provoke (critical) outputs implicitly and explicitly. For example, a hallmark publication from an original CRiC conference can be found in Day’s (2012) edited collection of papers, Sports and Coaching: Pasts and Futures. Here, Day (2012) brought together an eclectic collection of eight papers, aimed at highlighting the richness and diversity of studies in sports coaching, including topics stretching across sport coaching, ethical practice, sport history and sport development. Likewise, Corsby and Edwards (2019) collated a series of presentations held at the 2017 CRiC conference to produce an anthology of coaching research that highlighted the state of the field; a reading focused on presenting theoretically informed analyses of sport coaching practice.

In their various ways, what CRiC and SCR have aspired to promote is an interest in interrogative sport coaching scholarship. Yet, there remains a disjuncture between research that calls for an appreciation of coaching’s complexity while unproblematically reducing coaching to a series of knowable variables, and the critical renderings of sport coaching that interrogate actions from theoretically informed, practically underpinned and critical perspectives. Far from advocating a unification of the field, we have become increasingly concerned about how the area, which has increasingly gathered momentum in the last two decades, can preserve both insightful reminders about coaching and generate critical debate that moves the area forwards. Indeed, the relevance of this argument was recently taken up by Barker-Ruchti and Purdy (2022) in their SCR special issue, which advocated to further uncover the social interconnections between coaches, participants and stakeholders.

Here lay the origins of this project. In keeping with CRiC’s spirit to support the development and promotion of research, we proposed this special issue as an opportunity to capture the current mood of research, while asserting a hopefulness towards future sport investigations. The specific aim of this special issue is twofold. Firstly, it is to present a series of critical papers that seek to advance, and embody, the scope and principles of both SCR and CRiC; that is, to continue to evolve a critical body of knowledge in sport coaching. We have sought a range of submissions from short-hand extracts of data, methodological discussions and confessions, to theoretical insights, whilst encouraging authors to offer possible new horizons. The secondary purpose was to facilitate a process that would support and guide authors in a way that might better prepare them for the challenges of publication, dissemination and writing more generally. The point encapsulated here is that making the jump to peer-reviewed published work can be difficult to attain, particularly for postgraduate and early-career researchers. Further still, the process can be daunting, emotional, and genuinely challenging to navigate, making the endeavour to create critical work easier said than done. If we are to “live” the aims and value of CRiC and SCR, then a platform to help scholars step into this space was needed; one that would generate and uphold critical peer-review, yet appreciate and scaffold the skills needed to negotiate review.

The special issue should thus be considered formative. By this, we mean that it had the specific, functional purpose of supporting authors to articulate crucial features of their work. This ranges from helping locate the significance of the work (in a form of literature reviews, offering new avenues forwards) to articulating some of the prominent experiences of researchers “in-the-field” (e.g. issues with methods, language, or paradigms). The process, therefore, encouraged the writing of such experiences that were meaningful, prominent, and could contribute to existing discussions within the extant literature base. In this way, the formative extends to developing the identity of CRiC, with the support of SCR. That is, the articles taken forwards embrace a way of thought and arrived at conclusions that represent some of the prominent facets of research in sport coaching. All of which was done through trying to maintain the critical standards of peer-review, and therefore, cherished critical debate.

What can be found in this special issue is a series of short-form critical extracts (the articles range between 3000 and 5000 words). Importantly, the short-form nature is by no means an attempt to undercut the publication process or dilute the contributions. Rather, the intention has been to force authors into succinct narratives that provide clear and meaningful contributions to knowledge.³ Despite the restriction on word-count, we assert that reducing the space encouraged authors to be careful with their message – a point we, as editors, reiterated to reviewers throughout the process. Indeed, what has been provided are, in fact, precise contributions that take on issues perhaps previously glossed over within a traditional publication. A related purpose was also to ensure that articles are accessible for readers beyond academic quarters – another accusation we have often heard at respective National Governing Body events.

The nature of the special issue

This special issue includes 12 articles. Each has been written, reviewed and published as a “stand-alone” contribution but is also circumscribed by three prominent self-imposed restrictions. Before summarising the content, we offer some outline of what those restrictions are.

Firstly, as discussed earlier, the authors were restricted in space, encouraging them to concentrate on presenting only a few fundamental ideas. We might, therefore, state that the writers will have achieved their task should the reader become interested enough to explore the ideas presented in more detail at a later date. Secondly, there were only so many articles we could include in the special issue. This meant making some identity-shaping decisions about what might be considered prominent points of discussion for CRiC and SCR. There were many other ideas of interest and arguments of relevance that were submitted, but not taken forwards. Likewise, we can think of many related themes that were not covered by authors who submitted abstracts for this work; many topics covered in the journal already (or related journals) that must be considered as part of the sport coaching canon. These were not easy decisions to manage, and so, the reach of the content in this special issue should not be overstated. Inevitably, then, the articles are bound to the engagement we had at the time of providing this opportunity. Third and finally, building on the previous point, the authors comprise quite a small group of typically UK-centric scholars. This was not our intention but, perhaps, can be considered a reflection of CRiC’s current reach and influence as an organisation. A point we recognise and would like to develop in the future. Nevertheless, we hope the topics covered are of significant enough interest beyond the confines of the UK.

In terms of the content of the special issue, we start with Dempsey, Wood, Chapman, Roberts, and Cronin’s paper, titled “The Challenges of Navigating different Spaces and Contexts in Collaborative Doctoral Research in Sport Coaching”. The article aimed to unpack some of the complexities of navigating researcher-practitioner identities, and consequently offers stimulus for those researching more collaboratively with policy makers, course designers, coach developers, and coaches. Drawing upon a composite narrative, the paper focuses on both the researcher and supervisor experiences while collaborating with National Governing Bodies (NGBs). In doing so, the contribution seeks to support researchers, both neophyte and experienced, to understand the significance of their relationships when attempting to conduct high-quality research in sport coaching.

Next, Kempson and Lum provided personal reflections from their experiences of conducting action research in the paper, “Positioning action research as a critical means of understanding coaching: Considerations from the field”. Here, parallels are drawn between the practical realities of research and coaching activity to underscore the interconnectedness of theory and practice. Not only does this paper challenge the misconception that action research as a linear cyclical process, but the aim was also to problematise some of the complexities associated with seeking change, particularly as an “outsider”. This paper sheds light on the messy reality of action research, not to question its value or significance, but to develop a more sincere rigour to the research design.

In a related manner, Burgess, Molnar, Vinson and Richardson shifted attention from traditional research practices, to appreciate both participatory research and creative methods, when exploring the experiences of non-heterosexual coaches. The paper titled “The realities of utilising participatory research and creative methods to explore the experiences of non-heterosexual coaches” connects a variety of topics in the hope of making the case for coaching research to authentically express the insights of coaches’ lived experiences, by providing the coaches with agency over how they share their experiences. In doing so, the authors make the claim for how diverse, intersectional knowledge may be shared to support the exploration of sensitive, complex topics that exist within coaching practice.

Building upon the sentiment of developing rich insights, Lee, Corsby and Mata took on the task of discussing the role of language translation in sport coaching research. The paper, “Translating meaning in sport coaching research: Reflexivity and translation at work”, connected translation and reflexivity in coaching research to pay attention to the taken-for-granted language use that informs the generation, analysis and construction of research. The paper speaks to a well-placed desire among sport coaching researchers to study diverse and international settings, while shedding light on the issue of language translation. Drawing upon the experiences of the first and third author, the critical commentary discusses the nature of language translation, the practical issues, and its role within the research process. Doing so, prominent examples of translation within the research process are presented as a way to encourage reflexive critical treatment of data.

In keeping with the attention to research methods, Nichol and Hall’s paper, “Stimulated recall: problematising, challenging, and extending conventional application” presented the possibilities and potential of stimulated recall as a research method. Under the umbrella of interviews more generally, stimulated recall is presented as holding significant potential to develop understanding(s) of the ideological, philosophical, perceptual and emotional experiences that underpin coaching practice. In turn, the paper not only presents the possibilities of the research method but goes some way to dispel some of the long-standing positivist, univocal, and temporally isolated conventions that surround stimulated recall interviews. Drawing from the authors’ longitudinal experiences of using stimulated recall, then, the paper critically examines and problematises some long-standing beliefs and uses of this method, while also advocating for the future utility as a productive research method.

Shifting attention to how researchers might come to understand post-structural analysis, Alex Consterdine’s paper, “Provocative, disruptive and re-orientating approaches to sports coaching research” provides a personal account of the author’s coming to shift analytical and philosophical focus. In turn, the paper renders some personal reflections on the process of developing criticality through poststructuralist thinking. Tied to her Doctoral research, Consterdine demonstrates how post-structural sensibilities can be used as a set of orientating principles that not only influences thinking, but can encourage rigorous reflexivity analysis. The overriding point made, then, related to finding ways that promote novel means to consider the research process and the process of knowledge creation in sports coaching research.

By way of example from the previous paper’s call, Boardman, Jones and Toner’s “Towards a critical consideration of the effects of coaching practice on athletic retirement: a poststructuralist perspective” makes the dual case for both athletic retirement to be appropriately researched and integrated within coaching practice, while also advocating further post-structuralist analysis of coaching practice. The paper develops a new conceptual avenue designed to stimulate a further consideration of the retirement process within coaching research by advocating for a broader empirical exploration into the connection between coaching in high-performance settings and the complex phenomena of sports retirement. In turn, the paper presents the case to further both the existing understanding of athletic retirement more specifically, and the Foucauldian-informed analysis of coaching more generally. In doing so, a series of possible research topics relating to athletic retirement are offered for consideration.

Turning attention to sport disability coaching, Hardwick, Huntley, Maher, and Whitehead’s paper, “‘It’s just been learning on the job’: Becoming and Developing as a ParaHockey Coach” aimed to address a dearth of research focusing on coaching athletes with an intellectual impairment. The authors draw from interview data to explore practitioners’ developmental identities, and to suggest the integration of ParaHockey coach education by the global governing body. This paper foregrounds the experiences and opinions of ParaHockey coaches in becoming and learning to coach in this context. In doing so, the paper provides a snapshot of empirical data, collected via semi-structured interviews with eight coaches and two staff from the International Hockey Federation (FIH). Although concise in nature, the findings advocate the importance of understanding how the social-relational model of disability can be used to make sense of coaches’ experiences.

Holdom, Nichol and Ives’ paper, “Recognising, addressing and supporting the challenging nature of community sport coaching work: Potential ways forward for research and practice” shifts attention to community coaching. Here, the authors critically examine key issues that continue to pervade the domain of community sport coaching. Specifically, the paper discusses the conceptualisation of policy implementation and enactment, the link to neoliberal working conditions, and the consequences for training and education. The paper presents potential future directions for research and practice before outlining possible methodological approaches capable of being deployed.

Equally concerned with the education of coaches, Lascu, Wood, Moulds and Davids take on the issue of learning in coach education through the idea of “leading out”. Here, “Coach education as leading out with an experienced other” as a paper makes the case for the value of seeking out critical friends with whom coaches can share in becoming more situationally sensitive and skilful. In their critical commentary, the authors conceptualise how complexity is woven in the experiences of the authors as coaches, mentors and mentees. Putting ecological dynamics to work as a way of examining these experiences, the paper makes the case for understanding coach mentoring and education as educere (Latin: “to lead out”). The paper is written to stimulate thought and reflection on mentoring within coaching, while also demonstrating the utility of ecological dynamics as a theory to think with.

Shifting the analytical framework, the paper “(Re)conceptualising coach education and development: Towards a rhizomatic approach” by Leeder draws upon Deleuzoguattarian analysis to critically examine, and call for the disruption of, decontextualised and uniformly reproductive discourses in coach education systems. While recognising the sociocultural nature of coach learning, the aim of this paper was to introduce rhizomatic learning as a possible framework for (re)conceptualising coach education and development. In doing so, Leeder turns to the notion of rhizomatic learning, derived from the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari, in the hope of disrupting normalised and linear education systems. Consequently, the intention for Leeder is to put Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts “to work” to help theorise how social actors and coaching discourses function to produce learning and practice.

The final paper of this special issue comes from Franks, Phelan, and Fiander’s “Caught between a rock and a hard place: The liminality of the sport coaching ‘pracademic’”. Here, the authors present an interesting case of managing the connection between scholar and practitioner, while also considering the relationship between theory and practice. Questioning the emergence of “pracademics” as being individuals who blend practical coaching expertise with scientific enquiry, the paper critically examines the concept of the pracademic, and their service to both industry and academia, while sounding a note of caution in an increasingly commercialised sector. To make this case, the paper draws upon the retrospective reflections of an early career researcher (Franks). Rather than willingly accept the label, Franks et al. called for greater collaborative efforts to protect early career academics, challenge neoliberal structures, and for thoughtful and critical knowledge exchange in sport coaching.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the journal for hosting this special issue, which we hope illustrates the long and considered history between Sports Coaching Review and the Cluster for Research into Coaching (CRiC). In turn, we would also like to extend our thanks to the organisers of CRiC for their hard work. Although the ideas presented in this special issue can be attributed to the authors, we hope the debate and content reflect the ambitions and intentions of both Sports Coaching Review and CRiC; that is, to engender critical debate in sport coaching. In turn, our final thanks go to the authors and peer-reviewers who, in the spirit of SCR and CRiC, engaged with the process diligently, carefully, and critically.

Notes

1. The origins of CRiC can be attributed to the excellent work of Professor Dave Day, Dr. Bill Taylor, and Professor Robyn Jones.

2. A touchstone for the establishment of CRiC and SCR can be found in the 10-years of peer-reviewed publication. SCR celebrated a decade as a journal in 2022.

3. As the authors to this special issue will attest, we were strict with the word-count with the purpose of forcing the authors to be concise to their message. An intention that hopefully encouraged clarity, rather than limited the messages.