Reflection in a High-Performance Sport Coach Education Program: A Foucauldian Analysis of Coach Developers

Abstract

Reflection is a contested but taken for granted concept, whose meaning shifts to accommodate the interpretation and interests of those using the term. Subsequently, there is limited understanding of the concept. The purpose of this article was to consider critically the discursive complexities of reflection and their articulation through coach developers’ practice. Data were collected from a National High-Performance coach education program. Coach developers responsible for one-to-one support (n = 8) and on-program support (n = 3) participated in the research. Semistructured interviews were conducted with coach developers, and participant observations were undertaken of a coach developer forum and program workshops (n = 9). Foucault’s concepts: power, discourse, and discipline were used to examine data with critical depth. Analysis explored “Discourse of Reflection,” “Discipline, Power, and Reflection,” and “Coach Developers: Confession, ‘Empowerment,’ and Reflection.” Humanistic ideas constructed a discourse of reflection that was mobilized through coach confession. Coach developer efforts to be “critical” and “learner centered” were embroiled with intrinsic and subtle relations of power as “empowering” intent exacerbated rather than ameliorated its exercise. This article makes visible a different destabilized and problematized version of reflection, thus introducing an awkwardness into the fabric of our experiences of reflection.

“Long ball” and “balls deep”: a critical reading of female coach-learners’ experiences of the UEFA A licence

“…It is important to highlight how female coach-learners engaged with acts of resistance through micro-interactions within the UEFA course. Foucault (1990, p. 95) contended that "where there is power, there is resistance"; however, whenever and wherever resistance is exhibited it could be deemed as unacceptable and unprofessional and represent the 'wrong kind' of learner (Downham & Cushion, 2020). Within the present study, some female learners made efforts to challenge the conformity of how power traditionally operates through acts of resistance, by speaking up, fighting to be heard, highlighting the women's game and reporting their concerns about the nature of the course back to senior management.…”

‘It’s an experiential thing’: the discursive construction of learning in high-performance coach education

“…Innovative or progressive coaching, or thinking outside the prevailing discourses, can therefore be dismissed or even 'excommunicated', leading to reproduction of dogma and stagnation (Denison et al, 2017;Piggott, 2012). Dominant discourses identified in coaching include, for example, the discourses of 'science', 'performance', 'winning', 'philosophy', 'athlete-centredness', and reflection (Avner et al, 2017;Cushion & Jones, 2014;Downham & Cushion, 2020;Gearity, 2010;Grahn, 2014).…”

“…In sport coaching, a Foucauldian lens has shown some of the rationalities and knowledges involved in formal coach education and coach learning (e.g. Avner et al, 2017;Downham & Cushion, 2020;Piggott, 2012), for example, dominant scientific discourses, and knowledges from sport physiology or sport medicine, alongside discourses of positive psychology and humanistic coaching. These conceptualisations imply assumptions and truths about effective coaching, which limit practitioners and encourage them to adopt rhetoric rather than effecting change (Avner et al, 2017).…”

“…Along with coach educators, who establish and protect their 'expert' power, such governing practices, can produce docile coaches prevented from criticising the status quo (cf. Cushion et al, 2019;Downham & Cushion, 2020;Stodter & Cushion, 2019a). Yet, the cause of the commonly reported issues with formal coach education are often simplified to the apparent disconnect between what is known about adult learning and the design and delivery of professional development opportunities.…”

“…At present there is a 'lack of theorising in, or on coach learning' (Williams & Bush, 2019, p. 376). However, the productive use of theory, in this case Foucault, shows us that formal coach education and coach learning appears to be permeated by problematic taken-for-granted discourse and ideologies (Avner et al, 2017;Downham & Cushion, 2020;Piggott, 2012). For example, course design and delivery reflect an, often implicit, learning 'theory-in-use' (Cushion, 2013), with ideas about how people learn best and what is good for them rather than evidence or theory.…”