Elite coaching and the technocratic engineer:thanking the boys at Microsoft!

Abstract

The primary purpose of this article is to provide an in-depth understanding of the manner in which surveillance technologies have become readily appropriated and utilised by elite Rugby Union coaches. It is conceded that positions adopted by populist writings commonly categorise the act of coaching as an educational activity that harnesses holistic intentions. Through reflecting upon semi-structured interviews with players located at an Aviva Premiership Rugby Union Club, we provide insight into an elite sporting institution that more accurately depicts coaching as a technocratic activity. The resultant analysis is critical in its review of surveillance mechanisms embedded in institutional practice, extending to the sports coaching setting, which explicate sinister rather than pastoral motives to enforce a disciplinary power that enhances the quantification of athletic performance. The article concludes by emphasising the impact of such practices upon establishing a sense of trust and the construction of self autonomous to the sporting domain. We argue that the emerging and steadfast acceptance of technology in the elite coaching environment is threatening to circumvent the learning potential of players by merely viewing them as functionaries. In adopting this position, we tentatively suggest that future research seeking to inform the practice of coaching and coach education should continue to pursue this critical dialogue to question whether, and to what extent, an overreliance on technology is becoming perceived as the 'gold standard' of professional practice amongst the coaching fraternity.

Blaming Bill Gates AGAIN! Misuse, overuse and misunderstanding of performance data in sport

“…We also note that the works by Corbin and Strauss (2008) and Charmaz (2002Charmaz ( , 2014 relate to grounded theory; although this is not explicitly identified by Williams and Manley (2014) as their approach. Tellingly, however, the authors reported that Corbin and Strauss' and Charmaz's methods 'facilitated the construction of a theoretical framework' which 'gave rise to an evolving process of discovering theoretical possibilities that was far removed from the mechanical imposition of existing theories' (p. 6).…”

“…As such, confusion prevails. Williams and Manley (2014) report adherence to an open, 'bottom-up' generation of themes within their methodology section yet a range of markers (including their own statements) suggest that this analysis was far more deductive than their inductive phrasing (e.g., 'patterns and features emerged,' p.6), processes (e.g., open coding) and citations (e.g., Charmaz, 2014;Corbin & Strauss, 2008) would imply.…”

“…As the legitimacy and meaning of research outcomes are governed by the way they were generated, one of our core concerns lies with the approach used by Williams and Manley (2014). More specifically, this relates to the study's methodological coherence; or the level of compatibility across the authors' epistemological position, research questions, participant selection, data collection and data analysis (Mayan, 2009).…”

“…While sociological accounts of coaching practice are useful, we, as scientistpractitioners, suggest in this Research Forum article that the interpretation and implications offered by Williams and Manley (2014) are somewhat limited when viewed on their own. Indeed, we suggest that they might represent a somewhat partisan oversimplification or misapprehension of how elite environments have operated in the past as well as how they tend to work today.…”

“…Recently in Sport, Education and Society, Williams and Manley (2014) presented an unfavourable argument for the heavy reliance on technology in professional Rugby Union and elite sport in general. Taking a sociological stance towards this 'occupational crisis' (p.…”