‘Humour helps’: Elite sports coaching as a balancing act

References

• Andersen, S. S., & Ronglan, L. T. (2012). Elite sport in Nordic countries. In S. S.Andersen & L. T.Ronglan (Eds.), Nordic elite sport. Same ambitions – different tracks (pp. 11–24). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle. (2004). Nicomachean ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Branaman, A. (1997). Goffman's social theory. In C.Lemert & A.Branaman (Eds.), The Goffman reader (pp. x1v–1xxxii). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model. Human Relations, 61, 1087–1115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, M. S. (1979). Sociology through humor. Symbolic Interaction, 2, 105–110.
   Google Scholar
• Denison, J. (2007). Social theory for coaches: A Foucauldian reading of one athlete's poor performance. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2, 369–383.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1990). Humor and work: Applications of joking behavior to management. Journal of Management, 16, 255–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Reading: Penguin books.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merril.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Grugulis, I. (2002). Nothing serious? Candidates' use of humour in management training. Human Relations, 55, 387–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709–742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, J. (2007). Humour and the construction of Maori leadership at work. Leadership, 3, 5–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Having a laugh at work: How humour contribute to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1683–1710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2008). Two faces of organizational irony: Endemic and pragmatic. Organization Studies, 29, 1427–1447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, R. L., Armour, K. L., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: From practice to theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. L., Bailey, J., & Thompson, A. (2013). Ambiguity, noticing and orchestration. Further thoughts on managing the complex coaching context. In P.Potrac, W.Gilbert, & J.Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 271–283). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. L., Potrac, P., Cushion, C., & Ronglan, L. T. (2011a). The sociology of sports coaching. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. L., Potrac, P., Cushion, C., & Ronglan, L. T. (2011b). Erving Goffman: Interaction and impression management: Playing the coaching role. In R. L.Jones, P.Portac, C.Cushion, & L. T.Ronglan (Eds.), The sociology of sports coaching (pp. 15–26). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. L., Ronglan, L. T., Potrac, P., & Cushion, C. (2011). Concluding thoughts and ways forward. In R. L.Jones, P.Potrac, C.Cushion, & L. T.Ronglan (Eds.), The sociology of sports coaching (pp. 179–186). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. L., & Wallace, M. (2005). Another bad day at the training ground: Coping with ambiguity in the coaching context. Sport, Education & Society, 10, 119–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. (1996). Interview: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358, 483–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, D. M., & Gayle, B. M. (1999). It isn't a matter of just being funny: Humor production by organizational leaders. Communication Research Reports, 16, 72–80.
   Google Scholar
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humour. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Plester, B., & Orams, M. (2008). Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three New Zealand IT companies. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research, 21, 253–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potrac, P., Jones, R. L., & Armour, K. (2002). ‘It's all about getting respect’: The coaching behaviors of an expert English soccer coach. Sport, Education and Society, 7, 183–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Humour in business: A double-edged sword. A study of humour and style shifting in intercultural meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 4–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero, E., & Pescosolido, A. (2008). Humor and group effectiveness. Human Relations, 61, 395–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronglan, L. T. (2000). Gjennom sesongen. En sosiologisk studie av det norske kvinnelandslaget I handball på og utenfor banen [During the season. A sociological analysis of the female Norwegian national handball team on and off the court]. (PhD dissertation). Oslo: Norwegian School of Sport Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Ronglan, L. T. (2011). Social interaction in coaching. In R. L.Jones, P.Potrac, C.Cushion, & L. T.Ronglan (Eds.), The sociology of sports coaching (pp. 151–165). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Saury, J., & Durand, M. (1998). Practical knowledge in expert coaches: On-site study of coaching in sailing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 254–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., Wojtaszczyk, A. M., & Smith, T. (2006). Appropriate and inappropriate uses of humor by teachers. Communication Education, 55, 178–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and students' reports of learning. Communication Education, 48, 48–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar