Research over the last decade has demonstrated that it is experience and the observation of other coaches that remain the primary sources of knowledge for coaches. Despite this, coach education and continuing professional development fail to draw effectively on this experience. Using the work of Pierre Bourdieu, this paper attempts to understand how the "art of coaching" can be characterized as structured improvisation and how experience is crucial to structuring coaching practice. An examination of current coach education and assessment demonstrates that coaching practice viewed as a composite of knowledge has not specifically addressed the pervasive influence of experience on coaching practice. Drawing on experiences from the educational field, we examine how coach education and continuing professional development can utilize mentoring and critical reflection to situate learning in the practical experience of coaching.Until recently, although the importance of coaching to athlete development and national sporting success was increasingly being realized (Sports Coach UK, 2002), there was little agreement as to a future strategic direction for the burgeoning profession. A recent commissioned report ("The development of coaching in the United Kingdom," 1999) brought this situation into stark relief and, subsequently, initiated a process whereby the government-funded Sports Strategy Coaching Task Force recommended the development of National Occupational Standards (NOS) for coaches working within the high performance environment. The QUEST, 2003, 55, 215-230

No abstract

A sociological analysis was conducted into the collective nature of coaching as manifest in the triangular interaction between coach, athlete, and context within English professional youth soccer. The work of Pierre Bourdieu is predominantly used to interpret data collected ethnographically over the course of a 10-month season. Findings show how an authoritarian discourse is established and maintained, how it is structured by and subsequently structures the coaching context, and how accompanying behaviors are misrecognized as legitimate by both coaches and players. We conclude by reflecting on the limits of such work and its implications for future coaching education.

No abstract

No abstract