The Science of Coaching
Wade Gilbert, California State University - Fresno

A project was recently conducted to map the research on: (a) what coaches do (e.g., verbal and nonverbal behaviors, coaching styles) and what they think (e.g., attitudes, decisions, philosophies, values), (b) who they are (e.g., career development, personal profiles, employment status), and (c) preferences or expectancies for coaches and coaching (e.g. preferred leadership style and behaviors, coaching competencies).

It has been nearly a decade since Woodman (1993) hypothesized that athletic teams would soon include an 'information specialist' to retrieve and translate the rapidly expanding coaching science database. Without a reliable and systematic analysis of the wealth of scientific knowledge on coaching, the information remains disconnected and distant from most of the coaching community. The results of the current project help fill a gap by compiling the diverse body of research and packaging it into one resource. Following is a summary of some of the major trends in coaching science since 1970.

1. Yearly overview: Coaching science is clearly experiencing a rapid increase in published articles, as measured on a yearly basis. Nearly 30 articles are now published each year specifically devoted to some aspect of coaching science. Although this may seem insignificant when compared to some other fields or areas of interest, this is a significant increase from the 1970s when less than five articles were published yearly.

2. Authorship: Many authors have contributed to the coaching science database (n=836), yet several authors have made notable contributions based on the frequency with which they publish in periodicals. Donna Pastore clearly has established herself as a leader in this field, and it is unlikely than anyone soon will topple her position atop the article publication list. As to be expected, the most active contributors establish and follow clear lines of research (i.e., Chelladurai - leadership; Smith & Smoll - coach training; Solomon - coach expectations;). Although there are a large number of different authors, there is a relatively small core of individuals who sustain a line of focused research in coaching science.

3. Publication outlet: Several observations can be made regarding the diverse range of publication outlets in which coaching science can be found. First, several journals have established themselves as primary sources for coaching science (i.e., Journal of Sport Behavior, Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, The Sport Psychologist, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance). Therefore, these journals should be promoted among researchers and practitioners as key sources of information when conducting searches for coaching science. Second, the large number of journals in which coaching science is published is a positive sign both for creators and consumers of coaching science.

4. Coaching focus: It is encouraging to see a gradual shift towards multi-focus research on coaching. Studies that combine multiple focus areas such as coaching behaviors and cognition provide a more in-depth portrait of coaches and the coaching process. This is a notable shift from most of the research conducted in the 1970s in which the focus was almost exclusively on coaches' behaviors. However, it is unfortunate that so few articles have been written on the assessment forms or observation tools used to study coaches and the coaching process (less than one per year). Furthermore, there is no single resource listing the assessment tools that have been created, although partial lists are available in the literature (Darst, Zakrajsek, & Mancini, 1989; Ostrow, 1996).

There has been a steady increase in research on coach cognition, and most notably, coach development. An example of this type of work in coaching science is evident in the coaching model recently developed by Côté and colleagues (Côté, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995; Côté & Salmela, 1996; Côté, Salmela, & Russell, 1995a; Côté, Salmela, & Russell, 1995b).

In terms of specific themes, documenting coach gender trends is still one of the most studied areas in coaching science. There has been a steady rise in research on this area since the inception of Title IX in the United States in 1972. Interestingly, although there are now significantly more female sport participants, and hence coaching positions in women's sport, there are actually fewer female coaches today than pre-Title IX (Acosta & Carpenter, 2000).

5. Participant type: Interestingly, nearly 10% of all the published research on coaching science did not even include coaches in the sample. It seems that a valid understanding of coaches, and the coaching process, rests on in-depth information collected with coaches themselves. Ideally, in most cases multiple members of the sport community would be included in coaching science projects (i.e., coaches, athletes, parents, officials, administrators). Coaching, like teaching or managing, can perhaps best be viewed as an interpersonal relations field (Bloom, 1985). Like all interpersonal relations fields, rests primarily on effective communication and interaction among various participants.

6. Coach demographics: At least two trends are evident when viewing the gender of the coaches studied in the past 32 years. First, there has been a growing trend to include both female and male coaches within the same study. This is important to allow for gender differences to emerge, if present. This is also important because it ensures that the coaching science database is moving towards gender equity and the empirical knowledge base is moving closer to representing those individuals who assume the role of coach, regardless of gender. Second, there are very few studies (n=24) that focus exclusively on the female coach. Given the career barriers that female coaches often face (i.e., negative stereotypes and increasing competition from male coaches for coaching women's sports), there appears to be very little empirical data on the female coaching experience. The comprehensive lines of research conducted by Theberge (1988; 1990; 1992; 1993) and Pastore and colleagues (e.g., Inglis, Danylchuk, & Pastore, 2000; Pastore, 1991; Pastore, 1994) are examples of the type of work that can address this limitation of the coaching science database.

7. Coaching context: Coaching scientists have focused most of their attention on team sport coaches (basketball, volleyball, football, soccer) and school-based coaches (college and high school). It appears that coaching science does not provide a valid representation of the wide range of coaching contexts. Until more studies are completed with coaches at the youth club and professional level, and with coaches in sports other than the big four team sports, we cannot claim to provide the coaching community with an accurate scientific portrait of coaches and the coaching process.

*References and the full 196-page report are available Wade Gilbert