Engaging in Paradigmatic Dialogue: A Bibliometric Analysis of Coaching Scholarship From 1970 to 2020

Abstract

Coaching scholarship (CS) sits at the intersection of multiple paradigms and disciplines. Despite the eclectic nature of the field, most scholars operate only within their preferred paradigm, which limits how coaching is conceptualized and practiced. To address this limitation, we used the dialectic stance to analyze bibliometric records of CS produced between 1970 and 2020 from both an interpretivist and poststructuralist perspective. Using Web of Science, we identified 2,522 coaching articles and organized the bibliometric data into a time-ordered matrix representing five decades of CS: (a) number of publications per year, (b) country of origin, (c) institution, (d) journal, (e) author, and (f) most cited articles. Two research groups analyzed the data concurrently and independently using their respective paradigm. Next, the two groups came together to engage in dialogue and discover areas of convergence and divergence. Through the paradigmatic dialogue, the interpretivist research group realized they were operating in a postpositivist paradigm. Nevertheless, both groups determined CS was heavily influenced by Western societies, sport psychology, and the topic of motivation. The postpositivists highlighted evolutionary trends in CS, while the poststructuralists elucidated relations of power, understudied problems, and the consequences of the dominant knowledge produced.

Reviewing Original Research Articles Published in the International Sport Coaching Journal

“…and (c) What methodologies and data collection methods were used? These questions align with previous reviews of coaching literature (e.g., Campbell et al, 2022;Gilbert & Trudel, 2004) and coaching-focused scoping reviews (e.g., Bentzen et al, 2021). It is also a way to inform stakeholders (Levac et al, 2010) of ways to advance coaching science in this journal.…”

Mental health training for high school coaches and athletic directors: Community-based participatory research to Coach Beyond

“…16 To date, research studies utilizing a CBPR orientation are scarce within the coaching and sport for development literature, and a large number of studies focus on outcomes associated with trainings for coaches yet lack an emphasis on the processes underlying training development. [17][18][19][20] In a recent review of mental health awareness programs, Breslin and colleagues 17 identified five studies on mental health awareness interventions in sport (e.g. help-seeking, knowledge of disorders, and literacy) implemented with coaches.…”

“…As such, opportunities exist to advance the coaching literature using different research paradigms and innovations to improve coach education and training. 18 For this study, our work was grounded in the CBPR conceptual model outlined by Wallerstein et al 13 The contexts guiding our work are described in our literature review (e.g. the importance of the health issue, social and structural changes due in part to COVID-19, policy governance over coach education and training in the US, and a high level of readiness reported by coaches/needs of student-athletes).…”

“…As such, opportunities exist to advance the coaching literature using different research paradigms and innovations to improve coach education and training. 18…”