An investigation into the coach - athlete relationship. This research looks specifically at the relationship when the coach is a family member and uses semi-structured interview technique to gather data.

A378344

Advanced Research Method

Task 3

Research Topic: An investigation into the coach - athlete relationship. This research looks specifically at the relationship when the coach is a family member and uses semi-structured interview technique to gather data.

Early sport psychology researchers relied mainly on traditional, scientific approaches and although a large knowledge base has been established from these studies what has been neglected is to better understand behaviours and experiences of people in sport. Even as far back as 1979 a psychologist named Raner Martens recognised the gap between laboratory and field research. (Hardy et al 2002

) He called for research into sport-specific theories from field-based research and for a sacrifice of internal validity for more external validity. He argued that at that time there was a divide between ‘academic’ and ‘practising’ sport psychology and the reason for this divide was because positivistic research was the only accepted way to study psychological phenomenon. However, even since then there is still a shortage of qualitative research. In a recent review by Culver et al (2003) they reported that over a 10-year period, there were 706 journal articles that fitted into the ‘qualitative’ category, which represents about 20% of the total (p6). People who take a positivistic standpoint believe that the goal of knowledge is to describe what we experience, i.e. what we can observe and measure. The aim of positivism is to propose a hypothesis that can subsequently be tested. Therefore, emotions and thoughts cannot be directly observed and are thought by some to not be “legitimate topics for scientific study” (Trochim 2002). The other, and opposing epistemological consideration is interpretivism. This states that strategy is required to understand the differences between people and objects of the natural world and requires social scientists to determine the meaning of social action. The research topic discussed here is one that attempts to bridge the gap between the lab and the field by studying the complex interactions between the coach and their athletes. Before continuing, it is important to note that the divide between positivistic and interpretivistic research is not always so distinctive. For example, someone might be conducting a qualitative study, e.g. an interview but with a positivistic paradigm. For instance they might count the number of times a particular theme was present and turn these numbers into statistical analysis. However, despite this, the current research topic will be purely interpretive and will not involve any kind of statistical analysis.

Coaches, partners, parents and piers are all very influential ‘others’, who can contribute to athletes sporting experiences. At all levels of sport, the coach is a particularly significant person whose communication, action and even presence are influential in the development of the athlete (Jowett and Ntoumanis 2003).

Recent research has captured the coach-athlete interaction from a relationship-perspective, this consideres the two to be linked by their independent thoughts, emotions and behaviours. (Kelley, Berscheid, Christensen et al.1983).

Interestingly, there has been little research conducted on the coach-athlete relationship (Poczwardowski et al 2002) and it seems that what has been conducted in past years focused only on one side of the relationship. Recently, however, researches moved towards an interactionist approach (Carron & Chelladurai 1978) and recognised the importance of both the coach and the athlete’s cognitive, behavioural and emotive characteristics as well as the major factors of the environment. It is clear that the majority of psychological research in the area has been conducted from a reductionist point of view, i.e. analysing it by breaking it down into simpler constituents. Hinde (1979) argued that the relationship should be looked at from a holistic and phenomenal perspective. Therefore, by using interviews and observations with coaches and athletes, qualitative research can help us to understand the process through which events and actions occur. In this case it might be that the aim of research to see whether the athletes performance is being affected by their relationship with their coach. Although qualititative research maintains our interest in outcomes it’s actual aim is said to be to help us understand the complex processes that lead to these outcomes, this is often difficult with other forms of inquiry (Maxwell 1996)

This is a preview of the whole essay

A research topic, such as the one in question could be based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews to produce qualitative data, this type of research is interpretive as it is based on the researcher determine the meaning of the results. Interpretation of qualitative research can often lead to developing of new constructs. An example of an inductive study in the subject area would be that of Jowett and Meek (2000) who conducted a series of case studies on the coach-athlete relationship in order to “discern coaches’ and athletes’ affective, cognitive and behavioural responses.” (Jowett and Meek 2000 p102). These case studies lead to the emergence of the 3 c’s theory, which states that Closeness, Complementarily and Communication are the three salient components of the coach-athlete relationship. This theory then lead to the creation of the Coach and Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) which is widely used in the study of such relationships. Another example would be that of Scanlan et al (1989) who found that some elite skaters are motivated to perform by thinking about the crowd, this finding was said to expand on the work of the theory of social facilitation and demonstrates that a lot can be gained by not having the prior determination of relevant variables in sport psychology.

In the review articles analysed by Culver at al (2003) the researches noted that the majority of studies limited themselves to collecting data via interviews, as with the present study. The researchers noted that the majority of these studies only interviewed the participants once and raised their concern about this. Stream (1998) noted that there were certain methodological concerns apparent by relying solely on verbal data. The authors of the review cite the recommendations of Martens (1987) and state that it is possible that researchers may have misinterpreted his statements for diversification by focusing on the interview. Culver et al make recommendations for forms of observation to be combined with interviews to gain a more complete picture. This is more commonly knows as triangulation within the qualitative research world. Triangulation was originally proposed by Webb et al (1966) as an approach to measure concepts using more than one method. Bryman (2001) notes that researchers often check their observation techniques with a follow-up questionnaire to check their interpretation of the findings. Such a method was used by Smoll, Smith and Curtis in 1978 who developed the ‘Coaching Behaviour Assessment System’ as a way to measure a number of determinants of an effective relationship. The reason this system is effective is that it uses observations of coaches behaviour, which are subsequently content analysed according to twelve behavioural categories. After this the researchers conduct an in-depth interview on the coach and the athlete to see the athletes perception of the coachers behaviour as well as how well the coach can remember their own behaviour. (Taken from Motivation Lecture notes 18/11/03. Sophia Jowett).

Biddle et al (2001) noted that interviews in qualitative research can be highly structured. This can be a problem since highly structured interviews often result in a method similar to an oral questionnaire than an in-depth interview; this is said to be an example of a positivistic influence on qualitative research. Culver et al state that this demonstrates an “epistemological paradox” (p 7) in Sport Psychology. As qualitative researchers the aim is to introduce alternative methodologies into research but are failing to move on from traditional positivistic beliefs. The researchers state that this type of research should, more accurately be named “quasi-qualitative” (p 7).

Member Checking is another example of how qualitative researchers are still strongly influenced by epistemological assumptions of the quantitative paradigm. Research by Culver et al (2003) shows that participants have been typically asked to review contents of the interviews to show that the data was recorded in an objective way. Epistemological assumptions that define qualitative research state that the researcher should do all they can to ensure little distance between themselves and the participants. However, in most of the research, the reading over of the interview was the only way this was attempted to be achieved. Culver et al states that the interpretations of the data should also be shared with the participants this would allow the participants voice to be heard more and hence move away from traditional positivistic stand point.

With a research topic like the coach-athlete relationship it is important for the researcher not to view the participants as objects and restrain from converting their result into statistics. For example, Partingtom and Orlick (1991) used quotations taken from written surveys about psychology consulting experiences. The researchers allowed their participants to speak so freely that their results constituted almost entirely of quotations. Nilges (2001) has considered ways in which to bring qualitative research in line with the progression of quantitative. Using a narrative approach Nilges gave both a textualization of the study as well as an impressionist’s version. She stated that the intent of her present research was to present:

“…how opening qualitative texts to a wider variety of rhetorical devices can chance what is know about a given culture while at the same time pull qualitative writing practices in those involved in the study of human movement and sport into the postmodernist climate of the 21st century.” (p. 233)

It is encouraging to see that more sport psychology research is being conducted from a qualitative standpoint although what does seem clear is that understanding about ontological and epistemological issues needs to be more widely understood so that more purely qualitative research can be conducted.

Task 4

Research Topic: An investigation into the coach athlete relationship. This research looks specifically at the relationship when the coach is a family member and uses semi-structured interview technique to gather data.

Methodology:

Participants:

Participants were selected based on a coach-athlete dyad and volunteered to participate in the study. Participants had to fulfil a number of criteria in order to be selected:

Had a coach-athlete relationship where the coach was a member of the athletes’ family.
Participated in an individual sport
Competed at national or above level
Any combination of gender was accepted

This type of sampling is named purposive sampling because the participants have some kind of feature or process that the researchers are interested in. In this case the process being studied is the interaction between coaches and athletes where the coach is a family member:

“Many qualitative researchers employ…purposive, not random, sampling methods. They seek out groups, settings and individuals where…the processes being studied are most likely to occur.” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p202)

The approximate number of respondents that would realistically be gained is about 4 (Estimate taken from work of Jowett and Meek 2000). Generalizability is a standard aim in quantitative research and is usually gained through statistical analysis of the results. Representative sampling methods are conducted to allow researchers to make inferences about the population sample. In qualitative research, however, such procedures are usually unavailable and samples, like in this study are chosen because they are available to produce in-depth knowledge.

In a study that requires such great depth of knowledge and a diverse group of participants it is unrealistic to think that many more participant could be gained, although if possible it would be advantageous. Not only is the parent/coach – athlete relationship a rare combination a rare in the sporting world but also at elite level it is even more so. This does not mean to say, however, that the study is not worthwhile because even though large generalisations cannot be made it will enhance the understanding about the nature of such a specific relationship.

Method

The respondent was prepared for the interview by communicating the time and place in writing and briefly summarising the general outline of the interview to the participants. The role of the participants in the study was also emphasised to them to secure co-operation. The responded is also given assurance of confidentiality and anonymity.

The methodology used was a semi-structured interview. This allows some flexibility in the interview and moves away from having an interview schedule that looks like a survey or questionnaire.

The interview schedule employed consists of 75 open-ended questions and was split into 5 sections (These questions were taken from Jowett 2001). Before these questions were asked, the participant will be informed again of the general outline, purpose and role that the respondent plays in the research.

Section 1: Introductory section that was designed to collect demographic and general information relevant to the study. For example, Gender, Age, Years in sport, Level of sport, How many years have you been training with your current coach?

Section 2: This section was concerned with the background of the Coach-Athlete relationship. For example, was there any particular reason/s for deciding to work together as a coach-athlete?

The next three sections were designed in accordance with the ‘Three C’s Model’ Proposed by Jowett and Meek (2000). Each section assesses the three constructs that were thought to be crucial to the development and maintenance of the relationship. These are thought to be; Complementarily (e.g. Kiesler 1982), Closeness (e.g. Berscheid et al 1989) and Co-orientation (Newcomb 1953)

Section 3 (Closeness): This section concerns the nature (quality and quantity) of emotional closeness and includes 18 questions. For example, what does it mean to you to have a close relationship with your coach/athlete? And, Could you make a global assessment of the extent to which your coach-athlete relationship has been characterised by negative emotions (e.g. distress, tension, anxiety, jealousy and envy)?

Section 4 (Co orientation): This consists of 21 questions. For example. Did you feel that there were issues that you could not discuss with athlete/coach due to you being related? And, How important is it to understand each other in an athletic partnership – between a coach and an athlete?

Section 5 (Complementarily): This section consists of 25 questions concerned with the nature of complementary behaviours between the coach and athlete. For example, Can you describe the roles that you had as a coach/athlete relationship? And, How did your coach reward your efforts (for the athlete) and how did you typically respond to your athlete when they sought advice? (for the coach).

Separate interview schedules have been prepared for the coach and the athlete although the dyad will be asked similar questions with probes as needed. The interviews will be conducted back to back and tape recorded, with the participant’s permission. This helps the researcher to preserve the interview for later analysis and importantly means that the interviewer will have to take less notes. This is advantageous as having more eye contact can result in a greater rapport. (Gunn et al 2001)

The interview is said to be the most common source of data collection in qualitative research (Thomas and Nelson 2001). The main reason that this method was chosen is to gain comparative information from the coach and athlete and to broaden the understanding of the respondent’s social world. To enable this to happen the researcher has to have a thorough understanding of the participant’s lifestyle and the accompanying theories of the topic in hand. Hardy et al (1996) has stressed that a researcher should demonstrate trustworthiness from the participant, he started that this can be gained by the investigators being well trained in qualitative research. The interviews will follow a semi-structured procedure but if an interesting topic emerged it will be pursued in order to gain rich information about the topic in hand. Semi-structured interviews allow the respondents to expand on their answers if they want to; this is advantageous especially as this is a relatively new discipline.

As minimal research has been conducted on the area of coach-athlete relationship (Wylleman 2000) a semi-structured interview technique is advantageous as the respondents could digress to other information unconsidered by the researchers. This may lead to the recursive development of theory out of the results, a procedure named grounded theory. (Glaser 1967)

Participant observation was considered for this study but there is thought to be a number of advanteages of the qualitative interview over this. One example is that a semi-structured technique allows respondents to think back over how certain events unfolded, for example, in the complementarity section of the interview one of the questions asked “Did you ever withhold relevant information to the coach/athlte?” This reconstruction of events is simple not observable and hence the interview technique is advantageous here.

Another issue specific to this research topic is ethical considerations. For example, if the researchers were to observe a training session in which a number of other athletes were involved then written consent would need to be gained from every party being observed. With this interview, however, participants volunteer to be involves so this would not be a problem. Another problem with the observation technique is that of reactive effects. This is that having an observer present in a training session may make one or more parties behave in a different fashion than they would normally, this brings up questions of reliability and validity. However, one could argue that in an interview reactive effects may occur, i.e. the participant may answer what they think the interviewer wants to hear. This is where the issue of trustworthiness comes an important consideration.

If this study was conducted over a longer period of time then alternative methods could be considered, time constraints are a further consideration which meant the interview was the most efficient method. If completed over a longer period of time triangulation of methods would be considered. Triangulation allows the credibility of findings to be enhanced by obtaining results from different methods of collection. This would mean that if the results of the coach-athlete interview compared favourably to that of an observation of how the coach and athlete work together, for example researchers can have more confidence in their interpretations. Such an example was used by Smith, Smoll and Curtis in 1978 and was discussed earlier.

References

Journals

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M. (1989) The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness if interpersonal relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology. 57, 5, 792-807.
Biddle, S.J.H., Markland, D., Gilborne, D., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D., and Sparkes, A.C. (2001). Research methods in sport and exercise psychology: quantitative and qualitative issues. Journal of sports sciences, 19, 777-809.
Carron, A.V., & Chelladurai, P. (1978). Psychological factors and athletic success: An analysis of coach-athlete interpersonal behaviour. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 43-50

Culver, D.M., Wade, D.G., Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research in sport psychology journals: 1990 – 1999. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 1-15.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds) (2000).
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. (Chicago: Aldine)
Hardy
Hinde, R.A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press.

Jowett, S and Ntoumanis, N. (2003). The Greek Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (GrCART-Q): Scale construction and Validation. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 34: 101-124.
Jowett, S. & Meek, G. (2000). Coach-Athlete relationship in married couples: An exploratory analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 157-175.
Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, H.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L.A., & Peterson, D.R. (1983). Close Relationships. New York: Freeman.
Kiesler, D.J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarily in human transactions. Psychological Review. 90, 185-214
Newcomb, T.M. (1953) An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological review, 60, 393-404.
Nilges, L.M. (2001). The twice-told tale of Alice’s physical life in Wonderland: Writing qualitative research in the 21st centuary. Quest, 53, 231-259.
Martens, R. (1979) About Smocks and jocks. Journal of sport psychology, 1, 94-99.
Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Partlington, J., & Orlick, T. (1991). An analysis of Olympic sport psychology consultants’ best-ever consulting experiences. The Sports Psychologist, 8, 183-193.
Poczwardowski, A. Barott, J.E. Peregoy, J.J. The athlete and the coach: Their relationship and it’s meaning. Methodological concerns and research process. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 98-115.
Scanlan, T.K., Ravizza, K., & Stein, G.L. (1989

) An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: I. Introduction to the project, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 54-64.

Stream, W.B. (1998). Possibilities for qualitative research in sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist. 12, 333-345.
Smoll, F., Smith, R., Curtis, B., Hunt, E. (1978). Towards a Mediational Model of Coach-Player Relationship. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 49, 528-541.
Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal Relationships in Sport: Unchartered territory in sport psychology research. Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 555-572.

Books

Alan Bryman. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Hardy, L. Jones, G. Gould, D. (2002). Understanding psychological preparation for sport. Wiley

Lecture Notes from Motivational and Interpersonal Aspects of Sport. 18/11/03 – Sophia Jowett.

Websites