A Grounded Theory of Expert Cognition in Orienteering

Abstract

The objective of this study was to gain an understanding of expert cognition in orienteering. The British orienteering squad was interviewed (N = 17) and grounded theory was used to develop a theory of expert cognition in orienteering. A task constraint identified as central to orienteering is the requirement to manage attention to three sources of information: the map, the environment, and travel. Optimal management is constrained by limited processing resources. However, consistent with the research literature, the results reveal considerable adaptations by experts to task constraints, characterized primarily by various cognitive skills including anticipation and simplification. By anticipating the environment from the map, and by simplifying the information required to navigate, expert orienteers can circumvent processing limitations. Implications of this theory for other domains involving navigation, and for the coaching process within the sport, are discussed.

Sport Psychologists’ Experiences of Organizational Stressors

“…While these indings suggest that there are differences between academics' and practitioners' experiences, it is worth emphasizing that a degree of caution needs to be exercised here since the frequency with which stressors are encountered should not be equated with their relevance, signiicance, meaning or importance in individuals' lives (cf. Bringer, Johnston, & Brackenridge, 2004;Eccles, Walsh, & Ingledew, 2002;Krane et al, 1997). In addition, since the comparative aspect was not the primary focus of this study, we did not consider which sport psychologists operated in dual roles.…”

Using Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software to Develop a Grounded Theory Project

“…These included premature closure (not moving beyond description into making conceptual links between categories that then form the basis for developing theory) (e.g., Côté et al 1993;Johnston and Carroll 1998;Scanlan, Stein and Ravizza 1989), being overly generic and reducing the phenomena to a few stages, imposing theoretical concepts on the data (e.g., Woodman and Hardy 2001), and using terminology that is incongruent with the epistemological roots of Grounded Theory. Researchers who avoid these common methodological mistakes carefully describe (e.g., Eccles, Walsh and Ingledew 2002) and provide examples of their analytical process (Côté, Salmela and Russell 1995) as well as their research assumptions (e.g., Eccles et al 2002). Glaser and Strauss recommend the following criteria that will assist in recognising when a project is ready for closure:…”

Un programme de recherche articulant analyse de l’activité en situation et conception d’aides à la performance : un exemple en entraînement sportif de haut niveau

“…Ce modèle a été construit en référence aux principes de la grounded theory (Eccles, Walsh, & Ingledew, 2002 ;Strauss, & Corbin, 1990 …”