The commentary brings together the perspectives of a group of coach developers from across the globe who form a community of practice (CoP) from their involvement as “Cohort 5” in the International Council for Coaching Excellence and Nippon Sport Science University Coach Developer Academy. The CoP includes people from three types of organizations: university professors of sport coaching programs, national sport federations, and national multisport organizations’ directors of coach education. While this CoP existed prior to the pandemic, the forced isolation has created a new structure and purpose to the CoP: The authors are all making meaning of the landscape of coach development within which they work by understanding the perspectives of others who work in their domain from across the world and the similar realities that they face in North America, Europe, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. The authors outline the key themes that emerged from their weekly CoP video conference meetings to shed light on how this pandemic has changed the way they think about coach development.
Making Sense of Coach Development Worldwide During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bettina Callary, Abbe Brady, Cameron Kiosoglous, Pekka Clewer, Rui Resende, Tammy Mehrtens, Matthew Wilkie, and Rita Horvath
Looking the Part: Female Sports Psychologists’ Body Mass Index and Dress Influences Athletes’ Perceptions of Their Potential Effectiveness
Geoff P. Lovell, John K. Parker, Abbe Brady, Stewart T. Cotterill, and Glyn Howatson
Research has reported that initial evaluations of consultants’ competency are affected by dress and build. This investigation examined how athletes’ perceptions of sport psychology consultants (SPCs) are affected by SPCs’ physical characteristics of BMI and dress, and whether these perceptions are moderated by the athletes’ sex or standard of competition. Two hundred and thirty three competitive sports volunteers classified by sex and competitive standard viewed computer generated images of the same female SPC in sports and formal attire manipulated to represent a range of body mass indexes. Participants were asked to rank the SPCs in order of their preference to work with them, and to rate their perceived effectiveness of each of the SPCs. Results demonstrated that SPCs’ physical characteristics do influence athletes’ preference to work with them and perceptions of their effectiveness. Furthermore, athlete’s competitive standard does significantly moderate initial evaluation of SPCs based on physical characteristics.