Sport coaching research sits at the intersection of multiple disciplines (i.e., sport science, psychology, sociology, pedagogy) and paradigms (i.e., positivism, interpretivism) that span the natural and social sciences. Despite the eclectic nature of the field, some disciplines and paradigms are left marginalized or unknown, which limits how coaching is conceptualized and practiced (Cushion & Lyle, 2010). Leading coaching scholars have therefore called for more dialogue, information sharing, and translation between differing perspectives (North et al., 2021). In this study, we present the dialectics stance as one tool that can promote dialogue and understanding between coaching scholars and practitioners operating under differing perspectives (Greene, 2007, 2008; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Greene & Hall, 2010).
Rooted in mixed methods research, the dialectic stance, “actively welcomes more than one paradigmatic tradition, along with more than one methodology and type of method, into the same inquiry space and engages them in a respectful dialogue with one another” (Greene & Hall, 2010, p. 124). While a purist stance asserts that paradigms are incommensurable due to conflicting assumptions underlying each paradigm, a dialectic stance harnesses different ways of seeing the world to provide a more complete understanding of a phenomena (Greene, 2007). The dialectic stance thrives on tensions produced by different paradigms (Greene, 2002). In the past, these tensions have been known to provoke competition or a desire to prove the worth of a particular viewpoint over another (e.g., the paradigm wars among social scientists in the 1980s), but as Greene (2007) stated, “the point [of the dialectic stance] is not to see who wins, but what can be learned from one another” (p. 27).
The coaching literature has not been immune to such competitions, even if they have been carried out far more politely. Most disagreements have been between what North (2013, 2017) positioned as positivist psychologists and interpretivist sociologists. These debates have focused on the degree to which coaching scholars believe coaching to be a logical, linear, systematic progression, or an inherently messy, ambiguous, and complex activity. Abraham and Collins (2011), albeit writing some time ago about the future of the coaching field, argued that coaching scholars from sociology “over-egged the pudding” by calling for a deeper theoretical analyses. While Jones et al. (2016) drew from Law (2007) to reply with the well-observed question, “Would something less messy make a mess of describing it?” (p. 202). Irrespective of any tensions, the general approach has been to find consensus and balance through overarching meta-theoretical frameworks that presumably keep everyone happy. For example, Abraham and Collins (2011) posited a Professional Judgment and Decision Making approach; Jones et al. (2016) offered activity theory; Hemmestad et al. (2010) presented phronetic social science based on Aristotle’s calls for practical understanding and sound judgment to blend disciplines; and Nelson and Colquhoun (2013) offered a conceptual framework accounting for the broader triad of context, meaning, and behavior.
The interesting feature of these conceptual tools is the attempt to find a common conceptual language through overarching meta-theoretical frameworks that can bring coaching disciplines together. We applaud these attempts to move the field on through compromise. However, in a dialectic stance, divergence, convergence, and dissonance are seen as a rich source of generative dialogue through which we can develop a deeper understanding (Greene, 2007). As such, the dialectic stance is founded on axiological values of democracy, tolerance, acceptance and equity, and ontological and epistemological pluralism (Greene, 2007; Johnson, 2017). Our concern is therefore not in providing consensus over a common conceptual language, but in providing spaces where different conceptual languages (paradigms) can flourish and critically engage with one another.
Borrowing from Kuhn (1962), the dialectic stance accepts that paradigmatic differences frame scholarly thought and action in a way that two scholars “see” completely differently. Kuhn (1962) argued new paradigms develop when enough scholars in an academic community believe they can no longer solve their problems with the current ways of thinking and being. Yet, he also argued that the members of the initial academic community were not wrong per se, but that some members had moved on to consider other issues. Nevertheless, Kuhn’s concept of paradigms provided a framework that brought forth and clarified the underlying assumptions driving researchers. In the absence of paradigms, scholars could be speaking different languages without realizing it. One group seeing birds and ducks, and the other seeing antelope and rabbits (Kuhn, 1962). One group standing on flat ground and the other standing on a curved matrix. Both groups holding opposite ends of the same stick and pulling in different directions without completely understanding why. Our plea, alongside North (2013, 2017), is for a greater recognition of paradigms in coaching research. Without this, there is a danger that coaching scholars and practitioners unknowingly assume everyone has the same perspective and take their paradigmatic assumptions for granted, making communication difficult and rendering the development and insights offered by varying paradigms obsolete. If paradigms are explicit, differences in their underlying assumptions become clearer, and with that, coaching research from differing perspectives and interpretations can be more widely understood.
In the dialectic’s stance, scholars and/or practitioners from different perspectives engage in dialogue around a topic of interest. In this study, our topic of interest was the last 50 years of coaching scholarship (CS) (e.g., journal articles, commentaries, books). To date, scholars have primarily conducted systematic literature reviews to study CS. We are aware of only two literature reviews that aimed to synthesize all topics associated with coaching research. In the first review, Gilbert and Trudel (2004) compiled CS produced from 1970 to 2001 (n = 610) and tabulated articles according to the topic of interest and methodology. They found over half of the studies focused on observable coach behaviors and 80% of the studies used quantitative methods. In a second review, Griffo et al. (2019) built on this work by examining CS published from 2005 to 2015 (n = 612). Similar to Gilbert and Trudel (2004), they found quantitative methods remained dominant in the field and topics of interest were related to the discipline of sport psychology. Systematic reviews such as these offer interesting insights. However, when one considers how to synthesize all 50 years of CS, a systematic review becomes a grueling and cumbersome task.
An alternative approach is bibliometrics. Bibliometrics is the study of bibliographic units (Broadus, 1987). The goal of bibliometrics is to provide evolutionary models of scholarship and document publication patterns, influence, and impact (White & McCain, 1989). All CS leaves behind a bibliometric trail that includes the who (authors), what (article title/abstract), where (country, institution, and journal), and when (year) of an article, along with the number of citations associated with that article. These bibliographic records are stored and indexed in databases (e.g., Web of Science) and can be exported for analysis. While other fields have used bibliometrics to map their knowledge structure and research trends (Heberger et al., 2010; Monroy & Diaz, 2018; Qi et al., 2020), the use of bibliometrics in CS is limited to the work of Rangeon et al. (2012), who collected bibliometric records of CS produced from 2007 to 2008 (n = 141) and performed a citation network analysis to identify key publications and influential researchers. They found that coaching research was influenced by small groups of knowledge shapers primarily working within their own disciplinary perspective (e.g., sociology psychology or pedagogy), which again speaks to the need for dialogue between disciplines and paradigms. Given this, the purpose of this study was to use the dialectic stance to analyze bibliometric records of CS produced between 1970 and 2020 from two paradigmatic perspectives.
Methods
Design
This study used a mixed-methods design. We define mixed methods as,
an approach to investigating the social world that ideally involves more than one methodological tradition and thus more than one way of knowing, along with more than one kind of technique for gathering, analyzing, and representing human phenomena, all for the purpose of better understanding. (Greene, as cited in Johnson et al., 2007, p. 119)
Mixed methods research is often defined by the mixing (integration) of quantitative and qualitative data. However, mixing can occur along a number dimensions, including paradigms and analytic techniques (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017; Nastasi et al., 2010). The purpose of using a mixed methods approach in this study was initiation, or to increase the breadth and depth of inquiry by analyzing data from different paradigms (Greene et al., 1989). Given our purpose of initiation, we adopted an integrated blended design (Greene, 2007) where paradigms and attached analytic techniques were given equal weight and implemented concurrently. Figure 1 displays the procedures associated with our design.
—Procedures of integrated blended design. Black circles represent points of paradigmatic dialogue, or points in time when the two RGs came together. White boxes represent times when the RGs engaged in independent analysis. RG = research group.
Citation: International Sport Coaching Journal 10, 1; 10.1123/iscj.2021-0045
Two research groups (RGs) from different universities in the United States carried out the study. RG1 (n = 3) compiled and organized the bibliometric data and shared it with RG2 (n = 3). Next, both groups decided upon their paradigmatic lens. After both groups completed their analysis concurrently and independently, they shared a written description of their paradigmatic lens, analysis procedures, and findings. Then, each group composed a list of questions and comments based on points of understanding or confusion. After reviewing comments and questions, both groups met on a video conferencing platform to gain an understanding of the underlying assumptions and interpretations of the other group (two meetings, 1 hr each).
Data Collection and Management
A detailed description of the search strategy and data management procedures is provided in Supplementary Materials 1 (available online) due to manuscript page restrictions. To summarize, RG1 composed a definition of CS to ensure the records retrieved from the search applied to the phenomena of interest. CS was defined as data-based investigations, reviews, position papers, and scholarly commentaries on “the coaching, learning, and instructional processes as directed by coaches, as well as coach characteristics and cognitions” (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004, p. 389). Next, RG1 used the Web of Science search platform and database to identify a purposeful sample of CS (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). Importantly, the goal was not to perform an exhaustive search of CS, but instead to collect a large representative sample of CS that would allow us to explore the evolutionary trends of the field overtime. The search criteria required CS to be: (a) published between 1970 and 2020, (b) contain “coach*” in the title, and (c) published in journals that disseminated at least 25 records of CS in the last 50 years.
The search was run on October 20, 2020 and returned 2,522 records (articles). The following data were exported from Web of Science for all 50 years of CS (1970–2020) and each of the five decades individually (1970–1979, 1980–1989, 1990–1999, 2000–2009, and 2010–2020); (a) number of publications per year, (b) country of origin, (c) institution, (d) journal, (e) author, and (f) title of most cited articles. Records were organized into a time-ordered matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) in Microsoft Excel. Columns displayed the time period by decade, while rows were organized according to the category (see Table 1 for a sample of the data set). The full time-ordered matrix is provided in Supplementary Materials 2 (available online).
Sample of Time-Ordered Matrix
| Decade 1990–1999 | Decade 2000–2009 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Number of articles | Year | Number of articles |
| 1999 | 25 | 2009 | 96 |
| 1998 | 16 | 2008 | 81 |
| 1997 | 13 | 2007 | 52 |
| Country | Number of articles | Country | Number of articles |
| United States | 75 | United States | 282 |
| Canada | 20 | Canada | 71 |
| Australia | 4 | England | 65 |
| Institution | Number of articles | Institution | Number of articles |
| University of North Carolina | 7 | Michigan State University | 30 |
| University of Oregon | 6 | California State University | 27 |
| University of Ottawa | 6 | Texas A&M University | 27 |
| Journal | Number of articles | Journal | Number of articles |
| Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport | 27 | Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport | 108 |
| Sport Psychologist | 22 | Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology | 74 |
| Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology | 17 | Sport Psychologist | 57 |
| Author | Number of articles | Author | Number of articles |
| Barber, H. | 6 | Sagas, M. | 22 |
| Salmela, J.H. | 6 | Feltz, D.L. | 20 |
| Weiss, M.R. | 6 | Cunningham, G.B. | 18 |
| Title of most cited articles | Number of citations | Title of most cited articles | Number of citations |
| The coaching model—A grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches’ knowledge | 224 | The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model | 537 |
| Factors affecting Olympic performance: Perceptions of athletes and coaches from more and less successful teams | 185 | An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise | 337 |
| Practical knowledge in expert coaches: On-site study of coaching in sailing | 129 | Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach | 309 |
Note. This is a sample of two decades of the time-ordered matrix. The database used in this study included all five decades plus a 50-year total and contained the top 10 entries in each category.
Paradigmatic Lens
Each RG analyzed the time-ordered matrix through their preferred paradigm. RG1 selected the interpretivist paradigm (also referred to as constructivism) (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), while RG2 relied on the philosophical assumptions of poststructuralism. The different assumptions underlying each of these paradigms make them ideal for generative dialogue (Greene, 2007). The next section provides an overview of each group’s understanding of the assumptions underpinning their selected paradigm.
RG1—Interpretivism
The interpretivist paradigm relies on humanist assumptions which posit there is a “conscious, stable, unified, rational, coherent, knowing, and autonomous self” (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 500). The ontological position of interpretivism is relativism (there are multiple realities), while the epistemological position is subjectivism/constructivism (meaning is socially coconstructed through our interaction with the world and each other) (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Preissle, 2006). In the interpretivist paradigm, it is not possible, nor desired, to remove one’s personal subjectivities or values from the research process (value-laden axiology) (Nelson et al., 2016). Methodologically, interpretivists often rely on naturalistic methods (interview, observation, and text analysis) and compare and contrast interpretations with the aim of generating consensus (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Scotland, 2012).
RG2—Poststructuralism
The poststructural paradigm positions humans as ever-changing subjects entangled in, and produced by, the world and everything in it (immanence) (St. Pierre, 2000). Ontologically, poststructuralists see reality and truth as multiple, contextual, and subject dependent. The key word being multiple because poststructuralists do not claim that truths are ever wrong per se, but when contexts change, so does the applicability of those truths. Deeper understandings of the broader contextual realities surrounding sports coaching are key to RG2’s contribution to this dialectic study, and those understandings emanate from theoretical conceptions of power as relational and producing realities, truths, and knowledge (Foucault, 1978). In contrast to humanist paradigms (interpretivist and critical) where power is viewed as a possession someone or some group has over another, poststructuralists believe power is relational, everywhere, strategic, and because no person or group can ever escape it, productive. The person or group with less power, still has power, albeit less, and this power still effects what occurs.
Data Analysis
RG1 Analysis (Interpretivists)
The research questions guiding RG1 were (a) “What are the publication patterns in CS?” and (b) “Which authors, articles, countries, institutions, and journals had the most impact/influence on CS?” To answer these questions, RG1 performed a cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This analysis took place in two phases. In the first phase, RG1 analyzed individual rows of the time-ordered matrix to see intracategorical trends or temporal trends within a single category (i.e., number of publications per year). In the second phase, RG1 analyzed columns to see intercategorical trends or trends between categories in a single decade (i.e., 1980–1989). More specifically, each member of RG1 first conducted an independent analysis on an agreed upon portion of the data set. Then, all three members met on a video-conferencing platform to discuss their individual interpretations and identify agreements between members of the group. This process was repeated on a weekly basis over a 2-month period for different portions of the data set. Independent analysis allowed group members to explore different techniques of data interpretation (e.g., visual displays, bar graphs, word frequency counts), while group discussions challenged individual interpretations and allowed members to see how others in the group made sense of the data.
RG2 Analysis (Poststructuralists)
Moving further from the ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions of the positivist paradigm, there is a decreased expectation for researchers in the poststructuralist paradigm to specify detailed analytic techniques (Markula & Silk, 2011). Poststructural researchers believe power relations produce methodological beliefs and practices and so do not believe it is possible to claim objectivity in the research process (Markula & Silk, 2011). Rather than provide a detailed verification of the data analytic process then, it is incumbent on researchers to draw on their adopted theoretical framework to analyze their empirical material (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Members of RG2 are influenced by Michel Foucault’s theoretical framework, and acknowledge the need, when time and purpose allow, to use other poststructural theoretical frameworks, such as those from Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Gilles Deleuze. As an example, RG2 understanding of Foucault’s theoretical articulation of discourse working with relations of power, and specifically the theoretical discursive tools of scientific classification, dividing practices and subjectivation, RG2 focused on the scientization of the topic of motivation as a social construction rather than an inherent truth and posited associated consequences. Poststructural researchers’ methods, therefore, are explicitly theory driven. Theory is connected to their interpretations of the data. The clearer these theoretical connections are, the more “interesting, remarkable, and important” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 82) their argument.
Analysis of Meta-Inferences
A hallmark characteristic of mixed methods research is the formation of meta-inferences or conclusions reached by drawing from both strands of the study (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). To form meta-inferences, we relied an analytical framework for the dialectic stance outlined by Cronenberg (2020). First, we reviewed the findings from each group and generated assertions that could potentially be supported by both paradigms. Importantly, assertions were not only based on points of convergence or agreement between paradigms, but also points of divergence or discordance (Cronenberg, 2020; Greene, 2007). Next, we searched the data for support for the assertions and rejected any assertions that were not supported by evidence from both paradigms. Throughout the analysis process, contributions from both paradigms were viewed as equally important and valuable.
Results
RG1 Findings (Interpretivists)
Intracategorical Trends
In the first phase, RG1 analyzed individual rows of the time-ordered matrix to see intracategorical trends or temporal trends within a single category. This section summarizes how each category evolved over the 50 years.
Year
Figure 2 displays the number of records produced each year. There was clear exponential growth in the production of CS over the 50 years. In fact, 76% of the articles retrieved (n = 1,908) were produced in the last decade (2010–2020) and the largest output of CS occurred in 2019. The data displays a dip in the production of CS from 2019 to 2020, but this may be explained by the fact that some articles were not yet indexed in Web of Science when we conducted the search in October of 2020. The largest increase in CS production occurred from 2009 (96 records) to 2010 (149 records). Conversely, the largest drop occurred between 2014 (197 records) and 2015 (147 records).
—Number of records produced per year.
Citation: International Sport Coaching Journal 10, 1; 10.1123/iscj.2021-0045
Country of Origin
Figure 3 shows that the United States, England, Canada, and Australia consistently produced the most the CS throughout the 50 years. Contributions from the United States far exceeded other countries, with the United States contributing a total of 42% of the total publications in the 50-year period (n = 1,048). This is likely related to two factors. First, our search term “coach*” was constructed in English, which resulted in primarily English language articles and journals. Second, the quantity of publications from these countries could be related to the population of these countries and the corresponding number of universities located within a country. From 2000 to 2009, Spain emerged as the only non-English-speaking country to make a significant contribution to CS. Notably, England dramatically increased their output of CS in the last decade, surpassing Canada for the first time in the 50-year history.
—Number of records top countries produced per decade.
Citation: International Sport Coaching Journal 10, 1; 10.1123/iscj.2021-0045
Journal
When looking across the journal category, we noticed coaching-specific journals (International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching; International Sport Coaching Journal) did not emerge until 2000–2009 (n = 2). Prior to this, CS was disseminated in sport psychology and motor learning journals. From 1970 to 1999, there were no coaching-specific journals and authors likely had to justify how their topic fit within another discipline. In the last decade (2010–2020), Sport Coaching Review emerged as a third coaching-specific journal, while International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching and International Sport Coaching Journal rose to the top of the list by distributing the most CS. Also, journals in other disciplines increased their output of CS, indicating that they valued coaching as a topic of inquiry. Because our search terms were constructed in English, the search only retrieved one Spanish journal, Revista de Psicologia del Deporte, which actually publishes articles in English. CS in physical education, sport management, and sociology journals were relatively scarce throughout the timeline.
Institutions and Authors
As with coaching-specific journals, consistency among institutions did not appear until 2000–2009, when some universities began to establish themselves as consistent producers of CS (i.e., Michigan State University with 30 publications). During this time, seven of the top 10 institutions were in the United States, while the last decade (2010–2020) saw an increased contribution from institutions in Canada (e.g., University of Ottawa, McGill University) and the United Kingdom (e.g., Leeds Beckett University, Loughborough University). We saw a connection between authorship and institutions. In earlier decades, one author had the ability to influence their institution’s position (e.g., Packianathan Chelladurai with The Ohio State University), whereas in the past two decades, 2000–2020, multiple authors from the same university tended to be necessary to promote their institution’s position (e.g., Sophia Jowett and Christopher Cushion at Loughborough University). The most productive authors across the 50-year time span first appeared in 1990–1999 (Jean Côté, Gordon Bloom, Deborah Feltz, and Daniel Gould). Table 2 displays the 10 most productive institutions and authors across the 50 years.
Ten Most Productive Institutions and Authors Over 50 Years
| 1970–2020 (50-year total) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Institution | Number of articles | Author | Number of articles |
| University of Ottawa | 117 | Bloom, G.A. | 48 |
| Leeds Beckett University | 96 | Jowett, S. | 43 |
| California State University Systems | 95 | Mallett, C.J. | 36 |
| Michigan State University | 82 | Côté, J. | 33 |
| Loughborough University | 80 | Gilbert, W.D. | 32 |
| University of Queensland | 66 | Trudel, P. | 31 |
| McGill University | 56 | Cushion, C.J. | 30 |
| University of Birmingham | 55 | Collins, D. | 29 |
| University of Alberta | 47 | Feltz, D.L. | 28 |
| University Systems of Georgia | 46 | Camire, M. | 26 |
Most Cited Articles
A content analysis of the most cited articles titles and abstracts across decades revealed a dominance of five topics of interest: (a) motivation; (b) coach education, learning, development; (c) elite, successful, expert coaches; (d) conceptual papers; and (e) coach–athlete relationships. Some articles addressed more than one of these topics. For example, the most cited publication over the half-century was, “The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model” (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) with 537 citations. Motivational topics were especially dominant in the last two decades and were mainly based on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Several of the most cited articles were conceptual papers such as literature reviews, coaching models, definitions, and psychometric scale development. For example, “An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise” (Côté & Gilbert, 2009) was the second most cited publication over the 50 years (337 citations). Conceptual papers remained prevalent throughout the timeline, indicating the field is building a structure and language to frame future work.
Intercategorical Trends: A Tree Grows in Academe
For the second phase of our analysis, we looked at the columns to see intercategorical trends or trends between categories in a single decade. After multiple meetings, it became increasingly clear that evolution of CS was akin to the life cycle of a tree. That is, from fallow ground the field was cultivated, a seed was planted, roots were established, a seedling broke ground, and became a sapling that eventually added new growth. We felt so strongly about the appropriateness of this analogy, that we presented our intercategorical trends in this vein.
Preparing the Ground for Growth
During the first two decades (1970–1989), the field was seemingly fallow with very little attention given to the empirical study of coaching. Only 36 publications were retrieved from the search during these 20 years and the authors (e.g., Rainer Martens, Bonnie Parkhouse) with the most publications produced only three articles. This indicated a community of CS scholars had not yet been established. Moreover, none of the articles produced during this time were included in the most cited list for all 50 years even though they had the longest time to accrue citations. However, it was toward the end of this period where scholars made contributions that nurtured the soil and broke up the fallow ground allowing a seed to be sown that could produce future research.
Roots Established
In the decade from 1990 to 1999, a seed was sown. The first roots of the CS tree took hold, and a seedling became visible. The search of CS during this time period yielded 105 publications, a 400% increase from the decade prior. The work of a consistent corps of coaching scholars (e.g., Heather Barber, John Salmela, Maureen Weiss) regularly produced empirical work. Some of the scholars that arose during this time continue to contribute to CS today (e.g., Jean Côté, Gordon Bloom, Deborah Feltz, Daniel Gould). Journals disseminating CS during this time were primarily sport psychology journals, indicating sport psychology as a discipline had the most fertile soil for the roots of CS to take hold. The most cited articles related to elite coaching, coach learning, and stress and burnout in coaching. United States and Canada were the only countries to contribute significantly to CS.
Propagating the Sapling
By the turn of the century, the seedling born in the previous decade had matured to a sapling and it was here that the exponential growth of the CS tree began. The propagation of the CS research tree occurred when the productive scholars from the 1990s and their protégés entered the academe and began constructing their research agendas (e.g., Sophia Jowett—coach–athlete relationship, Robyn Jones—coaching process, Michael Sagas and George Cunningham—gender and race in coaching). A second contributing factor, the emergence of coaching-specific journals, gave these scholars an outlet for publications. Other countries like England, Australia, and Spain began to produce CS, adding foliage to the tree. Motivation, as an area of inquiry, became a primary topic of interest, generating the largest number of citations. This aligns with the finding from the previous decades that showed coaching research was sowed from the discipline of sport psychology.
Mature Yet Not Fully Grown
The last decade provided evidence that the propagation was successful, but far from complete, as a mature CS research tree was clearly identifiable and primed to keep growing. Nearly 2,000 articles were published from 2010 to 2020. Countries that previously made little to no contribution increased their output of CS (e.g., Wales, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Germany). Institutions such as Loughborough University, University of Ottawa, and Leeds Beckett University had numerous coaching scholars, many who collaborated on projects. The production of research from pioneers, protégés, and newcomers hit an all-time high. For example, the top authors from 1990 to 1999 were Heather Barber and John Salmela with six publications each, while the top authors from 2010 to 2020 were Gordon Bloom with 38 publications and Cliff Mallett with 30 publications. Despite the exponential growth during this time, the discipline of sport psychology continued to provide the most fertile soil for the field; six of the 10 most cited articles in this decade related to motivation.
RG2 Findings (Poststructuralists)
masked a substantial part of itself . . . . Power is ensured not by right, but by technique, not by law but normalization, not by punishment but control . . . . Methods that go beyond the state . . . the strategical model rather than the model based on law. (Foucault, 1978, p. 86)
The source and development of knowledge is important to know because it becomes habitual, normal, and therefore unchallenged, no matter how problematic (Foucault, 1988). As a result of this theoretical understanding and the consequences for how sports coaching comes to be understood and practiced, two features in the bibliometric data stood out: the origins of coaching research from the broader discipline of sport psychology and the resulting dominant concepts in the literature. The consequences of the origins and subsequent dominant concepts in the field—what those constructions of knowledge do—as evidenced in the bibliometric data is then, our chief concern. How problematic, or not, those effects are, we leave up to the readers to decide.
It is well-documented that in modern society rational discourses of physical biosciences, technology, and capitalism, which focus on extracting maximum value and efficiencies, are overwhelmingly circulated (Andrews, 2008; Struna, 2001). As a result of these cultural instrumental circulations of knowledge, it is unsurprising that the bibliometric data evidences the origins and predominance of coaching research residing in sport psychology journals and their associated researchers from Western societies (e.g., United States, Canada, Europe). This evidence is significant because sport psychology is an academic field dominated by the physical science logic of the positivist paradigm’s one causal truth, one reality, and objective quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Ahistorical, generalizable, reductive, objectified, linear, neat, controlled, isolated, measured, known and programmed rationales played out on humans, even though few humans portray such qualities. Consequently, one well-worn humanist critique of positivism in the sport coaching literature is the disregard of coaching’s broader complex and messy realities (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2004; Jones et al., 2011). This critique has led to the development of a sociology of sports coaching literature over the last 15 years. Yet, our concern is deeper because knowing how power relations operate, positivist conceptions of coaching become taken for granted and normalized, as true within CS and externally to coaches’ everyday practices, making change and radical progression beyond these constructed norms hard to achieve (Markula & Pringle, 2006).
Foucault (1978, 1995) used a number of theoretical phrases to illustrate how power relations affect truths, such as “entire machineries,” “general politics,” “regimes or systems of ordered procedures,” that produce, regulate, distribute, and circulate only the statements already established as true. Many of the procedures in these regimes and systems came from modern science’s (true) discourses and knowledge, and what Foucault (1995) theorized as disciplinary society’s specific organizational arrangements. The precise organizational controls of the disciplinary framework were the perfect home for the equally controlled scientific positivist truths. Collectively, thinking and doing in any ways other than those laid down by those truths and discipline’s organizations become unlikely (Denison & Avner, 2011; Mills & Denison, 2018). The positivist conception of coaching, therefore, became a perspective articulated and understood as reality, established a standard from which all other developments are measured against and compared to, and left a residue of assumptions, strategies, and methods on the lens with which coaching scholars, and coaches, view their worlds (Markula & Pringle, 2006; Markula & Silk, 2011).
As the bibliometric data show, the International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching is currently the leader in coaching publications, and even though coaching is an inviolably human process, the sociology of sport coaching has yet to integrate with psychological and biological sciences or reach the same status. This observation is important because the laws of physical science may work well on inanimate objects but are intuitively unlikely to work as well on humans, none of whom are robots, live in laboratories, or behave in law-like ways. Yet, as the titles of articles in the bibliometric data reveal a whole array of positivist (un-human) terms and concepts saturate CS, such as effects, correlations, and predictions (i.e., statistics), positive, self-report, determine, validity, subjects, groups, factors, scales, and models. Sports coaching is inherently dynamic, ambiguous, social, nuanced, subtle, messy, emotional, and complex, and yet is scientized (Habermas, 1987). In being scientized, coaching is reduced to a series of precisely measured, highly controlled, and isolated elements that may lose meaning or truthfulness in the real world. Disconnections and isolated elements devoid of any historical, contextual, and social realities are then seen as normal. How the elements come together and how many thousands, or millions, of elements are needed to explain all a coach needs to know is never asked. Which, for an activity as complex as sports coaching, is like trying to measure grain with a bean counter.
The consequences of this positivist dominance of the coaching literature are endless because now every coaching element must be measured to be known, understood, and practiced, and has no worth unless it is measured. Each measured laboratory truth turns into law, and then a program of rules for everyone to follow, or a production of humans expecting to be told what to think and do, which is a likely problem for athletes and coaches, most of whom are expected to make their own decisions in performance. Scholars, and coaches, have no choice but to add, transmit, and prescribe more, and more, elements: X was preferred, X is good, do X. In other words, there is a general sense that scholars can easily apply a so-called right and ready-made knowledge by studying the right coaches to get the right formula and right behaviors to fit what are usually inherently contextual, dynamic, and ambiguous settings (Bowes & Jones, 2006).
Studying coaching then involves always measuring and adding, more “simple,” reduced, and disconnected elements on top of the existing elements (i.e., in the sense the element is devoid of any social, connected, or contextual understanding). Motivation is separated from anxiety, which is separated from confidence, which is separated from positive coaching, and life skills, and leadership and so on. An additive culture, or a chaotic brickyard where more is assumed better and that Bernard Forscher (1963) critiqued, nearly 60 years ago. Forscher’s concern was that scientists were so busy making bricks for the sake of making more bricks that they had lost sight of any ability to build beautiful buildings and towns because they were buried under an avalanche of bricks. More bricks, more facts, more disconnected elements are not the same as understanding theory and thinking critically to making meaningful change. Coaching better involves simply adding more simpleness through a “rationalization of rationality” (Clegg, 2002, p. 43): coaches parrot simplicities and CS enables it. In setting the scientific truths and rules that CS is to be known, positivism also affects the decisions about what research, disciplines, and topics get studied, funded, awarded grants, faculty hired, publication decisions, and journals judged (i.e., impact factors). Dangerously, scholars are not only more likely to receive funding for doing objective science, but the larger that funding is likely to be (Bush et al., 2013). What Foucault (1978) argued was that a whole system, operation, or entire machinery develops, producing only some truths—scientized coaching language and practices—while leaving out others.
If research focuses on producing more elements, rather than bringing them together into their broader contextual realities many fundamental discrepancies, contradictions, and paradoxes are overlooked, and everyone carries on regardless (Lyotard, 1979). For example, the discrepancies between the data’s evidence of a fascinating concentration of sports coaching research on the topic of motivation juxtaposed by the reality of never meeting athletes or teams that want to lose or perform badly. How does this research concentration on motivation, or understanding how to make athletes work harder, make sense when compared with the numerous maladaptive experiences that pervade sport? Rising mental health, dropout and burnout, injury rates, coach violence (e.g., bullying, abuse, maltreatment), anxiety and depression, eating disorders, limited self-identity, worth, and esteem are all experiences giving the sense that athletes are already working as hard as possible and cannot work any harder (Gearity & Kuklick, 2020).
Similarly, how do researchers’ claim that sport offers a host of positive life skills, such as leadership, resilience, accountability, teamwork, and autonomous decision-making gel with the research seeking better ways of achieving athlete buy-in, and the seeming realities for coaches telling athletes what to think and do? The point we are making is that taken in the isolated reductive context of positivism’s guidelines, topics such as motivation, leadership, and positive youth development make total sense. As soon as those topics are placed in their more complex social realities, however, contradictions appear. In fact, in his iconic textbook The Post-modern Condition (1979), Lyotard argued that science is as profit-driven as it is objective because it is a part of today’s hypercommercial age and as a result, scientists need to find “other” ways to legitimate their claims (e.g., blending and connecting disciplines).
Discussion and Meta-Inferences
The paradigmatic dialogue between RGs was transformative for both groups. Members of RG2 stated that they had not considered the degree to which paradigms were commensurable in any meaningful way prior to this project. On the other hand, it was through the paradigmatic dialogue that members of RG1 recognized they were, in fact, operating in a postpositivist paradigm, as opposed to an interpretivist paradigm. As RG2 (poststructuralists) discussed their intertwining philosophical, theoretical, and methodological assumptions, RG1 became aware that their analysis was devoid of a substantive theory and was heavily driven by linear procedures of method that categorized, synthesized, described, and observed the bibliometric data as they are. They divided the bibliometric data into pieces and studied them independently to understand the evolution of CS. Although RG1 initially aligned with the interpretivist paradigm by acknowledging their presence as researchers in data gathering and interpretation process, they also bracketed off their personal values. When comparing their findings with the poststructuralists, it became clear that RG1 resisted the urge to inject values into their findings, and rather described what they saw, literally, in front of them. To counter threats to objective, accurate representation of the data and eliminate any biases and observational errors, they relied on postpositivist research methods such as triangulation (intersubjective agreements) to get as close as possible to truth. In sum, RG1 unknowingly postpositivized the interpretivist paradigm. These assumptions were left exposed by RG2 whose theory-driven methods (as opposed to methods driven) enabled them to position their interpretations of the findings in their sociocultural historical context (value-laden) and as a result, judged, questioned, and critiqued both the bibliometric data and RG1’s analysis.
Nevertheless, both sets of findings offer different and valuable insight related to CS. Standing alone, each perspective is fallible and partial, but together, they produce a broader, deeper, more complex whole (Johnson, 2017). RG1 (recognized here forward as postpositivists) offers an etic perspective driven by predetermined methods that stem from the natural sciences. Their findings represent the general trends in the production of CS in each of the categories and decades based on quantity of publications. As such, they provide a comprehensive overview of the bibliometric data that could be generalized and used to predict future trends in CS. While informative, without RG2, these findings would be sterile. RG2 adds an emic perspective driven by Foucault’s concepts of relational power. Instead of following strict a priori methods, they move fluidly between personal values, social context, and their deep theoretical understanding of poststructuralism. Through these iterative processes, they see the particular, consequential, and typical. As such, their findings challenge readers to question the taken-for-granted truths and dominant narratives in CS, and the consequences of those truths for coaches’ everyday practices.
In keeping with axiological values of democracy, tolerance, acceptance, and equity from the dialectic stance, we create space for both perspectives to thrive in the meta-inferences. Meta-inferences are conclusions reached by drawing from both strands of a mixed methods study (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). Table 3 summarizes the main areas of convergence and divergence between strands.
Summary of Meta-Inferences
| RG1 postpositivist | RG2 poststructuralist |
|---|---|
| Convergence | |
| CS originated from the discipline of sport psychology. | |
| English speaking, Western societies have produced the vast majority of CS. | |
| The topic of motivation has dominated CS, especially in the last three decades. | |
| Divergence | |
| CS is evolving, as evidenced by the increased number of publications. | The evolution of CS is limited by the privileging of positivist paradigms. |
| Conceptual papers (frameworks, models, scales, definitions) provide a foundation for the field to build from. | Conceptual papers ignore coaching’s broader, deeper, complex, and messy social realities, and display the scientization of the field. |
| Motivation topics were dominant in the literature. | A focus on motivation implies athletes are not working hard enough, which does not align with research on mental health, athlete abuse, and burnout that implies athletes work too hard. |
Note. CS = coaching scholarship; RG = research group.
Both strands of findings indicated that coaching research originated from, and remains heavily influenced by, the discipline of sport psychology. Relying on quantitative data, the postpositivists viewed sport psychology as home that sowed fertile ground for the field to grow. The poststructuralists agreed that sport psychology dominated coaching research but viewed the marginalization of sport sociology and the arts, humanities, and other social sciences as problematic, and questioned whether the field actually grew or simply reproduced more leaves on the same tree. They argue other disciplines/discourses are marginalized and that other ways of knowing are needed to capture the broader and deeper messy social realities in coaching. The postpositivists also noted the absence of other disciplines when they that stated physical education, sport management, and sociology journals were relatively scarce throughout the timeline. Yet, in sticking with their value-neutral language, they do not present this as problematic, but as a matter of fact.
Likewise, both groups noted that CS was produced by Western societies and authors. However, the postpositivists attribute this finding to their methods; the search terms they constructed in English, while the poststructuralists relate this finding back to the dominance of sport psychology, which was produced and continues to be reinforced and shaped by Western values of production, consumption, efficiency, and systematic controls. These Western values are evidenced by the overwhelming focus on the topic of motivation, as in “why aren’t athletes working hard enough; how can we make them work harder” rather than fun, joy, creativity, and more.
Both groups mentioned the prevalence of conceptual papers (i.e., coaching models, definitions, scales). Because the conceptual papers align with positivists’ assumptions, the postpositivists position these conceptual papers as capable of building a structure and language to frame future work in coaching. The poststructuralists agreed, yet cautioned that these models, definitions, and scales be regarded as one potential version, rather than the only version. RG1 and RG2 saw motivation as a major topic of interest in coaching research, especially in the last few decades. As stated previously, the poststructuralists cautioned the general absence of broader social contexts and nuanced realities, for the appearance of amotivated athletes may be more likely due to other factors, such as lack of physical conditioning (e.g., lack of aerobic or anaerobic fitness, body structure, injury), crowded schedules (e.g., schooling, exams, work), or boredom from work-like training routines (e.g., production, efficiency, and systematic controls). The postpositivists agreed with many of these sentiments in discussions and even used the word “dominant” to describe the presence of motivation in their findings. However, they again do not go as far as to say the dominance of motivation is problematic or present alternative options. They do, however, provide insights into other pervasive topics of interest such as coach learning, expert coaches, and coach–athlete relationships.
There were times when we were analyzing, you know, going through the decades and going through each category and we would get down this rabbit hole of like, why the hell are we still doing motivation? Or how are institutions or higher structures influencing this? We would have an entire Friday of an hour, and we would just talk about that. And then it was like, well, hold on. That’s not what we’re supposed to be doing . . . . Let’s get back to what the data is saying and just report the trends. Let’s just report the data for what it is. It’s kind of funny, though, like you bring these things up, and it was like, yeah, we had some of those conversations as a group. On our end, it was, I think, constrained by the methods and research questions. That just wasn’t our intent.
The idea that we’re going to dogmatically follow a methodology and not ebb and flow and go in and out of different things, that’s not what we do. We’re not really eliminating any potential errors. We’re not eliminating our emotional response. It’s a layer of who we are.
Data that have been analyzed categorically, or just taking some numbers, you know, like 7, 12, US, Canada, England . . . . These things have a somewhat introductory kind of insight or understanding because you’re synthesizing, in this case, a large volume of information or data. It’s okay, but I’m always pushing for greater insight or something further. Something more interesting than, you know, just a lay or initial understanding . . . . We can analyze that stuff and talk about it like this is what it is, but we wouldn’t stop there. We wouldn’t synthesize it as if it could understand itself or that we should just take that for some sort of neutral or even progressive understanding of the world. We’re going to take exactly that, but we’re going to use it for something else . . . . We want people to realize that this could be a problem and we want to create new ways, explore new possibilities.
While both groups were looking at the same data set, their respective paradigm allowed them to see different things. Each group was playing by their own set of rules (assumptions). Neither group felt as though they had to promote their assumptions or findings over the other. It was understood at the outset that the groups would be operating under different perspectives, which would be viewed as a strength of the study, not grounds upon which to compete. Each paradigm adds different and unique insights. Together, they form an assemblage of findings that would not be possible with just one paradigm alone.
Because the majority of CS is currently conducted within a single paradigm, it can be difficult for scholars to collaborate or connect across paradigms and disciplines—a standoff that leaves individuals having to make the necessary connections themselves. That is, with no intellectual guides. However, the dialectics stance opens up space for collaboration without forcing one group to take on the values and assumptions of the other. We feel the dialectics stance could also be used to promote dialogue between scholars operating within the same paradigm. Afterall, there are numerous interpretations of positivist, interpretivist, critical, and poststructural paradigms. One challenge of using the dialectic stance is space limitations. Accounting for one paradigm and line of inquiry can be difficult but including two forced us to make strategic choices about what to include, which required us to sacrifice breadth and depth. Finally, there are also limitations to working with bibliometric data. These are discussed in Supplementary Materials 1 [available online].
Conclusion
Coaching research does not belong to a single discipline or paradigm, but instead sits at the intersections of multiple ones. Despite the eclectic nature of the field, potentially insightful views are marginalized, and divergent paradigms rarely encounter one another in a single study. This limits how coaching is conceptualized, practiced, and the subsequent value added to coaches’ everyday practices. This study demonstrates how the dialectics stance clarifies coaching scholars’ assumptions, while also allowing different assumptions to thrive in the same space. Although the dialectic stance has been used in other areas, such as education, nursing, information systems, and counseling (Creamer & Edwards, 2019; Cronenberg & Headley, 2019), this is the first study to do so in coaching research.
As we move into the next 50 years of CS, we believe it is not only possible, but necessary, for scholars to leave their paradigmatic silos and engage with their counterparts not for reasons of persuasion, conversion, or competition, but for generative dialogue, deeper understanding, and greater self-awareness (Greene, 2007). In these efforts, we can evolve from divided communities that simply coexist, to multilingual translators that understand each other. This will allow us to fully capitalize on the eclectic nature of our field. In essence, we must cease explaining “anomalous behavior as the consequence of mere error or madness,” and move toward statements such as, “I don’t know how proponent of the other view succeed, but I must learn” (Kuhn, 1962, pp. 202–203). For those who wish to pursue the latter, we encourage you to examine the bibliometric data with your preferred paradigm and explore tensions with your counterparts. The search criteria and time-ordered matrix are provided in the Supplementary Materials 1 and 2 [available online]. As others use their unique perspective to explore the data, our paradigmatic dialogue becomes richer, as does our understanding of CS.
Author Biographies
Sara Campbell is an Assistant Professor in the Master of Arts in Sport Coaching and Kinesiology and Sport Studies programs at the University of Denver. At the start of writing this manuscript, her research interests were in coaching, mixed methods, and program evaluation. At the end of writing this manuscript, her research interests shifted to philosophy and post-structural theories.
Joseph Mills teaches in the Master of Arts Sports Coaching Program at the University of Denver. His research uses post-structural theories to compliment the sport sciences and enhance coaches’ practices.
Obidiah Atkinson is a PhD Candidate at The Ohio State University. His research interests are in youth development, sport pedagogy, and coach education.
Brian Gearity is Director and Associate Professor of the Master of Arts in Sport Coaching and Kinesiology and Sport Studies programs at the University of Denver. His research focuses on the sociology and psychology of sport and strength and conditioning coaching.
Clayton Kuklick is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Master of Arts in Sport Coaching program at the University of Denver, where he teaches a variety of courses spanning motor learning and pedagogy, biomechanics, exercise physiology, and kinesiology. His research interests center on the sociology of sport coaching and coach learning and development.
Bryan McCullick is a Professor in the Department of Kinesiology at University of Georgia. His research interests are in sport coaching and coach education.
References
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011). Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching science. Quest, 63(4), 366–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483687
Andrews, D.L. (2008). Kinesiology’s inconvenient truth and the physical cultural studies imperative. Quest, 60(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483568
Bowes, I., & Jones, R.L. (2006). Working at the edge of chaos: Understanding coaching as a complex, interpersonal system. Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.20.2.235
Broadus, R.N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics.” Scientometrics, 12(5–6), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016680
Bush, A., Silk, M., Andrews, D., & Lauder, H. (2013). Sport coaching research: Context, consequences, and consciousness. Routledge.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L., & Potrac, P. (2004). Understanding sports coaching: The social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Clegg, S.R. (2002). “Lives in the balance”: A comment on Hinings and Greenwood’s “Disconnects and consequences in organization theory?” Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 428–441. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094846
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/110.1260/174795409789623892
Creamer, E., & Edwards, C. (2019). Embedding the dialogic in mixed method approaches to theory development. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1598357
Cronenberg, S. (2020). Paradigm parley: A framework for the dialectic stance. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818777925
Cronenberg, S., & Headley, M.G. (2019). Dialectic dialogue: Reflections on adopting a dialectic stance. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(3), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1590812
Cushion, C., & Lyle, J. (2010). Conceptual development in sport coaching. In J. Lyle& C.J. Cushion (Eds.), Sport coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 1–11). Elsevier.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? Columbia University Press.
Denison, J., & Avner, Z. (2011). Positive coaching: Ethical practices for athlete development. Quest, 63(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483677
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin& Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed., pp. 1–45). Sage.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.
Fetters, M.D., & Molina-Azorin, J.F. (2017). The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817714066
Forscher, B.K. (1963). Chaos in the brickyard. Science, 142(3590), 339–339.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1988). Truth, power, self. In L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P.H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 9–15). University of Massachusetts Press.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish (2nd ed.). Vintage.
Gearity, B.T., & Kuklick, C.R. (2020). Social issues in sports coaching in the United States. In J. Maguire, M. Falcous, & K. Liston (Eds.), The business and culture of sports: Society, politics, economy, environment (pp. 145–160). Macmillan.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science research published from 1970–2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(4), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2004.10609172
Greene, J.C. (2002). With a splash of soda, please: Towards active engagement with difference. Evaluation, 8(2), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008002522
Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
Greene, J.C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807309969
Greene, J.C., & Caracelli, V.J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1068
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Towards a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
Greene, J.C., & Hall, J.N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism. In A.M. Tashakkori& C.B. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119–143). Sage.
Griffo, J.M., Jensen, M., Anthony, C.C., Baghurst, T., & Kulinna, P.H. (2019). A decade of research literature in sport coaching (2005–2015). International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 14(2), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954118825058
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Beacon Press.
Heberger, A.E., Christie, C.A., & Alkin, M.C. (2010). A bibliometric analysis of the academic influences of and on evaluation theorists’ published works. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009354120
Hemmestad, L.B., Jones, R.L., & Standal, Ø.F. (2010). Phronetic social science: A means of better researching and analysing coaching? Sport, Education and Society, 15(4), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2010.514745
Johnson, B.R. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692
Johnson, B.R., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Jones, R.L., Edwards, C., & Viotto Filho, I.A.T. (2016). Activity theory, complexity and sports coaching: An epistemology for a discipline. Sport, Education and Society, 21(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.895713
Jones, R.L., Potrac, P., Cushion, C., & Ronglan, L.T. (2011). The sociology of sports coaching. Routledge.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Law, J. (2007). Making a mess with method1. In The sage handbook of social science methodology (pp. 595–606). Sage.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lyotard, J.F. (1979). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.
Mageau, G.A., & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000140374
Markula, P., & Pringle, R. (2006). Foucault, sport, and exercise: Power, knowledge and transforming the self. Routledge.
Markula, P., & Silk, M. (2011). Qualitative research for physical culture. Palgrave Macmillan.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
Mills, J.P., & Denison, J. (2018). How power moves: A Foucauldian analysis of (in)effective coaching. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 53(3), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690216654719
Monroy, S.E., & Diaz, H. (2018). Time series-based bibliometric analysis of the dynamics of scientific production. Scientometrics, 115, 1139–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2728-4
Nastasi, B.K., Hitchock, J., & Brown, L. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies. In A.M. Tashakkori& C.B. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 305–338). Sage.
Nelson, L., Groom, R., & Potrac, P. (2016). Learning in sport coaching: Theory and application. Routledge.
North, J. (2013). Philosophical underpinnings of coaching practice research. Quest, 65(3), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.773524
North, J. (2017). Sport coaching research and practice: Ontology, interdisciplinarity and critical realism. Taylor & Francis.
North, J., Callary, B., Dieffenbach, K., Galatti, L., Lara-bercial, S., Nash, C., & Connor, D.O. (2021). A reflection on the state of sport coach research, its community, and representation: The 2020 International Council for Coaching Excellence Research Committee. International Sport Coaching Journal, 8(3), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2021-0041
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Johnson, B.R. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
Preissle, J. (2006). Envisioning qualitative inquiry: A view across four decades. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600975701
Qi, S., Hua, F., Zhou, Z., & Shek, D.T.L. (2020). Trends of positive youth development publications (1995–2020): A scientometric review. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(1), 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-020-09878-3
Rangeon, S., Gilbert, W., & Bruner, M. (2012). Mapping the world of coaching science: A citation network analysis. Journal of Coaching Education, 5(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1123/jce.5.1.83
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9
St. Pierre, E.A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390050156422
Struna, N.L. (2001). Historical research in physical activity. In J.R. Thomas& J.K. Nelson (Eds.), Research methods in physical activity (pp. 203–217). Human Kinetics.
Teddlie, C.B., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430
White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1989). Bibliometrics. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 119–186). Elsevier Science Publishers.
