The Illusion of Competency Versus the Desirability of Expertise: Seeking a Common Standard for Support Professions in Sport

Abstract

In this paper we examine and challenge the competency-based models which currently dominate accreditation and development systems in sport support disciplines, largely the sciences and coaching. Through consideration of exemplar shortcomings, the limitations of competency-based systems are presented as failing to cater for the complexity of decision making and the need for proactive experimentation essential to effective practice. To provide a better fit with the challenges of the various disciplines in their work with performers, an alternative approach is presented which focuses on the promotion, evaluation and elaboration of expertise. Such an approach resonates with important characteristics of professions, whilst also providing for the essential 'shades of grey' inherent in work with human participants. Key differences between the approaches are considered through exemplars of evaluation processes. The expertise-focused method, although inherently more complex, is seen as offering a less ambiguous and more positive route, both through more accurate representation of essential professional competence and through facilitation of future growth in proficiency and evolution of expertise in practice. Examples from the literature are also presented, offering further support for the practicalities of this approach. Key PointsThe paper examines limitations in the commonly applied competency method of evaluation for support professions and promotes an alternative, expertise-focused approach.The expertise approach goes beyond the use of competency-based systems, and even the definitions of competence provided in this paper, to evaluate and facilitate capacities for more elaborative and adaptive thinking, judgment and growth.Bodies responsible for professional development and evaluation need to lead a long overdue, widespread shift from competency-driven to expert practice across the spectrum of science and coaching in sport, reflecting the situation already common in medicine.

Implementing the Five-A Model of Technical Refinement: Key Roles of the Sport Psychologist

“…Second, and as already introduced earlier, the deployment of a PJDM approach toward developing expertise (Collins, Burke, Martindale, & Cruickshank, 2015) in this area would appear to offer a most plausible solution. In contrast to a competency-based approach, whereby good practice is perceived to consist of a predetermined (and narrow) set of elements, a PJDM approach would require the utilization of knowledge to resolve practical problems, in other words, to generate possible options for action and then to evaluate those against the individual athlete's goals and presenting circumstances (Martindale & Collins, 2005).…”

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

“…Accordingly, the failure of Williams and Manley (2014) to explore (or at least consider in more detail) why management and coaches did what they did, leaves a large hole in their presentation against the performance goals which can reasonably be inferred as primary in this context (cf. Abraham & Collins, 2011;Collins, Burke, Martindale, & Cruickshank, 2015;Winter & Collins, 2015).…”

“…Collins et al, 2015). Crucially, therefore, regular monitoring is essential when considering the nonlinearity that exists within coaching environments (Button, Lee, Mazumder, Tan, & Chow, 2012).…”

Professional judgement and decision-making in adventure sports coaching: the role of interaction

“…Collins, Martindale, Burke, & Cruickshank, 2014). As one of several consequences, coach behaviour may be suboptimal, as the solution derived from PJDM may be based on insufficiently detailed knowledge or a "convenience" compromise brought about by time or environmental pressures; that is, a compromise which insufficiently considers the interaction of factors in that particular context.…”

“…For example, coaches may be sufficiently open-minded or flexible to consider solutions which they have seen in other coaching environments. Without an in-depth knowledge of the underpinnings and interactive impacts of such actions, however, they are often unable to transfer the good features of the solution (to be adaptable) or even to transfer these aspects to come up with a set of novel but even more effective methods (to be creative) (Collins, Martindale, Burke, & Cruickshank, 2014). As such, our paper is about the drive to develop flexible, adaptable and creative coaches; an aim which is certainly relevant for coaches who specialise in adventure sports and, we would suggest, generically as well.…”