Understanding coaches’ perspectives on building trust in sport: a narrative inquiry approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality relationships between coaches and their team members play an important role in promoting individual and team-level outcomes. Trust has been identified as a key feature of these quality relationships, yet little research exists examining how these trusting relationships can be built. By adopting a narrative inquiry approach, we sought to elicit coaches’ stories on their (a) perceived approaches to building trust with team members (i.e. coaching staff, athletes) and (b) life experiences that shaped their approaches. We recruited 18 Canadian interuniversity coaches who engaged in semi-structured interviews which we analysed using a two-phase storyanalyst approach (thematic narrative analysis and holistic-form structural). From these conversations, we found that coaches drew from one of two context-situated narratives with regard to initial trust development: ‘It needs to be given’ and ‘It needs to be earned’. When sharing stories about trust maintenance, however, all coaches drew upon a third context-situated narrative: ‘It needs give and take’. Coaches’ stories were then situated within higher-order narrative types (e.g. performance, stability). Altogether, our findings illuminate the personal and social complexities of building trust from the coach perspective, while reinforcing the importance of developing trusting relationships within sport teams.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".