Parameterising expertise in coaching: Past, present and future

Abstract

Research into expertise is increasing across a number of domains pertinent to sport. Whilst this increase is particularly apparent in coaching, a key question is how to identify an expert coach? Accordingly, this paper draws upon existing studies into expert coaches to address this issue; in particular, the criteria used to select expert coaches for research purposes and the methods used in expert coach research. Based on these data, we contend that the elements of expertise are not fully reflected within currently accepted criteria which, in turn, results in expert coaching research not necessarily identifying the appropriate individuals to study. The paper concludes with recommendations for more rigorous criteria for selecting expert coaches and highlights the associated implications for the future training and development of expert coaches.

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

“…Indeed, we suggest that they might represent a somewhat partisan oversimplification or misapprehension of how elite environments have operated in the past as well as how they tend to work today. In doing so, we work against a pragmatic philosophy (Giacobbi Jr., (Carson & Collins, 2011;Collins, 2014;Cruickshank, Collins, & Minten, 2014-as well as our belief that coaching is, most fundamentally, an exercise in decision making (Abraham & Collins, 2011;Abraham, Collins, & Martindale, 2006;Nash, Martindale, Collins, & Martindale, 2012). More specifically, we consider important arguments for utilising technology which we hope will stimulate coaches and academics to consider the contrary position, or at least to think about this topic in greater detail.…”

Making Mentoring Work: The Need for Rewiring Epistemology

“…Responding to early definitions of expertise that revolved around coaching behaviors, Nash, Martindale, Collins, and Martindale (2012) recently proposed a set of cognitive-based criteria against which expertise can be more accurately classified. Essential components included: use of a large declarative knowledge base to solve problems and make decisions; use of perceptual skills, mental models, and routines; an ability to work independently and develop innovative solutions; use of effective reflection, experimentation, and lifelong learning; an awareness of personal strengths and limits; and management of complex planning processes.…”

The Open Society and coach education: a philosophical agenda for policy reform and future sociological research

“…Such discussions are necessary and valuable in establishing a shared understanding of key concepts to enable quality debate in an emerging field ). Indeed, based on this research, it is now possible to make the following fundamental assertions: 1) coach education is often used as a loose synonym for formal or mediated coach education or certification courses (typically those provided by national governing bodies); 2) coach education, so conceived, is a subcategory of coach learning, which may be experienced by coaches as formal, informal or non-formal learning situations (Lemyre et al 2013, 378); 3) coach learning is, in turn, a subcategory of coach development, which refers to a broader process of socialisation into coaching and graduation towards increasing effectiveness and development of expertise (for definitions see Côtė andGilbert 2009 andNash et al 2012). …”

“…Assuming that increasing knowledge is one of the main aims of all coach education programmes (cf. Nash et al 2012), NGBs and NSOs are encouraged to consider these largely practical recommendations when revising policies and practices in future. One final qualifying point needs to be made.…”

“…the 'what'), since compelling suggestions have been offered by others recently (cf. Abraham and Collins, 2011;Nash et al 2012) and await application and empirical testing. Rather, this paper focusses on the way in which coach education is delivered (i.e.…”