MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392121094 · doi:10.1080/13573322.2024.2318650

An exploration of how dominant discourses steer U.K. strength and conditioning coach education

2024· article· en· W4392121094 on OpenAlexafffund
Christoph Szedlak, Bettina Callary, Kimberley Eagles, Brian Gearity

Bibliographic record

VenueSport Education and Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConditioningPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyAeronauticsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychosocial coaching competencies, including psychological, pedagogical, philosophical, and sociocultural aspects, which underpin an athlete-centred coaching approach, have been largely overlooked by the United Kingdom Strength and Conditioning Association (UKSCA) coach education.It is possible to understand why psychosocial competencies have been disregarded by critiquing how stakeholders' perceptions, such as board members, tutors, assessors, who are responsible for coach education, have been shaped by dominant discourses within sport culture.The purpose of this study is to understand and critique UKSCA stakeholders' perceptions of psychosocial coaching practices through the lenses of dominant discourses in Strength and Conditioning (S&C) coaching.Thirty stakeholders took part in one-to-one semi-structured interviews.To prompt discussion for the interviews, they were shown video vignettes depicting psychosocial coaching competencies.The data were analysed in two phases.First, a thematic analysis deduced participants' understandings of the competencies built into each vignette.Second, a poststructural discourse analysis critiqued how a performance-scientific coaching discourse and a discourse of orthodox masculinity impacted stakeholders' perceptions.The results indicate that stakeholders' perceptions of psychological and pedagogical effective coaching approaches focused on athletic performance, which disregarding the well-being and personal development of the athlete.Stakeholders also recognised overt sexist coaching practice, which suggest some appraisal of sociocultural and philosophical competencies.Yet, covert sexist microaggressions towards female coaches were often accepted as banter and female coaches' emotional labour were not recognised.This study advances the literature by showing how the dominant culture of performance-scientific coaching and orthodox masculinity shape what is accepted as effective coaching practice.Such coaching practice deemphasises psychosocial coaching competencies and limits the impact of equity, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) strategies, as well as the holistic development of both athletes and S&C coaches.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.408 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSport Education and SocietySame topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207