The Career Experiences of Football Association Coach Educators: Lessons in Micropolitical Literacy and Action

Abstract

Coach education has been the subject of increasing investigation in recent years. While such inquiry has provided important insights into coaches' engagements with various forms of coach education provision, coach educators' perspectives have remained curiously absent from the literature base. This study provides rich insights into the ways in which four Football Association (FA) coach educators interpreted their everyday workplace relationships with various significant others (e.g., their line managers, colleagues, and coach learners). In-depth, cyclic interviews were utilised to generate the data. The transcripts were iteratively analysed using symbolic interactionist and dramaturgical theorisations of social life. The analysis highlighted how the participants' interactions and identity management were influenced by their understandings of others' expectations of acceptable workplace performance, as well as their own career related aspirations. Here, the participants demonstrated a nuanced ability to 'read' and 'write' themselves into the micropolitical and uncertain terrain of coach education work. It is hoped that this study highlights the utility of symbolic interactionist and dramaturgical theories to the critical examination of coach education work and, relatedly, how such inquiry could be used to assist in the preparation and on-going professional development of coach educators.

The “Face” of Coach Development: A Systematic Review of the Role of the Coach Developer

“…Thirteen studies (24.53%) did not state a specific framework for the research. Whilst those that did, reported philosophical underpinnings such as interactionist and dramaturgical (e.g., Allanson et al, 2021), interpretative (e.g., Corsby, Lane, & Spencer, 2020), realist (e.g., Redgate et al, 2020), critical realist (e.g., Garner, Turnnidge, Roberts, & Côté, 2020) and social constructionist (e.g., Leeder & Cushion, 2020).…”

“…However, this paints just part of the picture, as individual CDs may specialize in one role or have multiple roles, with multiple responsibilities or 'tasks' (Abraham et al, 2013;ICCE, 2014). Indeed, in the reviewed studies there are instances of CDs operating as both Educator and Assessor (Allanson et al, 2021;Garner et al, 2020;Reid & Harvey, 2014), Designer and Educator (Callary, Gearity, & Kuklick, 2021;Cronin & Lowes, 2016;Rodrigues et al, 2021;Martin et al, 2019) and Educator and Mentor (Cushion et al, 2019;Downham & Cushion, 2020). This indicates that for many CDs the role can be multidisciplinary, combining several fields of expertise in concurrent roles.…”

“…The effectiveness of CDs (and by extension CDPs) relies heavily on the social interaction with other actors in a coach development system (Ciampolini et al, 2019;Nash & Sproule, 2012). Yet, our knowledge about the social dynamics involved in CDs' practice is limited Allanson et al, 2021). A small number of studies drew on sociological paradigms such as symbolic interactionism to elucidate an otherwise 'invisible' practice (Cushion et al, 2019, p. 534).…”

“…Ostensibly this is due to the need to work collaboratively, enacting learner-centered principles and sharing autonomy in the learning process (e.g., Ciampolini et al, 2021;Griffiths et al, 2018;Milistetd et al, 2019). However, particularly in formal settings, this requirement is underwritten by a need for symbolic capital (e.g., credibility, reputation, respect), whether with coach learners (e.g., Garner et al, 2020) or within the coach development system for employment opportunities (Allanson et al, 2021).…”

“…Coach education research has instead focused on coaches' perspectives on their development experiences and the features that are valued and desired by coach learners (e.g., Ciampolini, Milistetd, Rynne, Brasil, & Nascimento, 2019;Ji, Xu, Cheng, Sun, & Zhang, 2021;Lewis, Roberts, & Andrews, 2018;Nash & Sproule, 2012) including multiple reviews of coach development programmes (CDPs; Evans, McGuckin, Gainforth, Bruner, & Côté, 2015;Lefebvre, Evans, Turnnidge, Gainforth, & Côté, 2016;Silva, Evans, Lefebvre, Allan, Côté, & Palmeira, 2020). Despite research in the CD field expanding in the last few years (e.g., Callary & Gearity, 2019a), and authors identifying a paucity of empirical research exploring CDs' practices, processes, and perspectives (Allanson, Potrac, & Nelson, 2021;Callary & Gearity, 2019a;Ciampolini, Tozetto, Milan, Camiré, & Milistetd, 2020;Watts et al, 2021), a systematic review of this key role has yet to be completed. Indeed, improving our understanding of the CD could impact practice, policy, and research in coach development.…”