Workplace learning of high performance sports coaches

Abstract

The Australian coaching workplace (to be referred to as the State Institute of Sport; SIS) under consideration in this study employs significant numbers of full-time performance sport coaches and can be accurately characterized as a genuine workplace. Through a consideration of the interaction between what the workplace (SIS) affords the individual and the agency of the individual SIS coaches, it is possible to gain an understanding how high performance sport coaches learn in the workplace. Analysis of data collected by means of semi-structured interviews with a group of coaches (n=6) and administrators (n=6), revealed that coaches learned through a variety of sources both within and outside of (but often influenced by) the SIS. In addition, there were a range of factors such as the working climate and the physical environment that were reported to have an impact on the learning of the coaches (structure). In keeping with Billett's (2006) theorizing, aspects of the individuals' agency (e.g. passion for the sport, drive to be the best) were also found to be critical to the learning in the workplace.

Full text

Workplace learning
of
high
performance spor ts
coach
es
Steven B. Rynnea*, Clifford J.
Malletta
and Richard
Tinning
a,b
a
School
of Human
Movement
Studies
,
The University
of
Queensland, Brisbane,
QLD
,
Australia; bFaculty of
Education, University
of
Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
The Australian coaching workplace (to be referred to as the State
Institute
of
Sport; SIS)
under
consideration
in this study employs significant
numbers
of full-
time
performance
sport coaches
and
can be accurately
characterized
as a
genuine workplace.
Through
a
consideration
of the
interaction
between what
the workplace (SIS) affords the individual and the agency of the individual
SIS
coaches, it is possible to gain an
understanding
how high
performance
sport
coaches learn in
the
workplace. Analysis of data collected by means of
semi-
structured
interviews with a group of coaches
(
n
=
6)
and
administrators
(
n
=
6),
revealed that coaches learned
through
a variety of sources both within
and outside of (but often influenced by) the SIS. In
addition,
there were
a
range of factors such as the working climate and the physical
environment
that
were
reported to
have an impact on the learning of the coaches
(structure).
In keeping with Billett’s
(2006)
theorizing, aspects of the
individuals’ agency (e.g. passion for the sport, drive to be the best) w
ere
also
found to be critical to the learning in the
workplace.
Keywords:
Learning; Sport coaching; Sport
institute
Introductio
n
Much early literature on learning was based
around
formal
educational
institutions
such as schools and universities whose explicit function was
education.
With
the
massive changes in industry and the
subsequent
economic
implications,
there
has
been a shift from research on learning ‘for’
work to learning ‘in’ work (Billett
et
al.
,
2005). The State
Institute
of Sport (SIS)
was chosen as a site for investigation as it is one of the only a few workplaces
in Australia that employs
numerous high performance
sport coaches. These
coaches comprise the largest group of
emplo
yed
people within the
organization,
but despite their centrality to the SIS, and to
the
athlete talent
development
process in general, little was known about how these key
personnel
continued
to develop their skills during the period of their
employment.
What has been shown
through
previous inquiries into coach
learning is
that
traditional
means of formal coach
education
have been largely
ineffectual and
ha
v
e
not been highly valued by high
performance
coaches
(e.g.
Cushion
et
al.,
2003;
Trudel
& Gilbert,
2006).

In other domains of work, it has been suggested that the most likely and
accessible
environment
to assist the
development
of relevant and genuine
learning will be
the
workplace itself (Billett
et
al., 2005). It has also been argued
that workplace
lear
ning
is
under-researched,
and has the potential to bring
new perspectives to research
on
learning because it
encompasses
a wide range
of more or less
structured
environ
ments, which are only rarely
structured
with learning in mind
(Eraut,
2004).
This
certainly has relevance to the
learning of SIS coaches as the notion of a
coaching
‘workplace’ has been largely
overlooked. Similarly, given that in most instances
there
have been very few
formal
education opportunities
for coaches, and also that
those
offered have
been criticized in both
content
and design, considering the workplace
as
a
legitimate site of learning creates a unique
opportunity
to investigate the
learning of high
performance
sport
coaches
.
The State Institute
of
Sport
(SIS)
as
a
w
o
rkpl
ace
The main facility of the SIS is physically located in an outer suburb of
the
state’s capital city. While there were
permanent
workspaces allocated for
the
24
coaches employed at the time of the study, the group was fairly
transient
with few coaches spending significant periods of time at their desk.
Given the location of
the
facility and the nature of coaching work, the coaches
tended to only visit the site if they had meetings or to
conduct
sessions with
their athletes in the strength
and
conditioning
facilities and sports science
testing areas. While the physicality of
the
SIS
environment
had some influence
on the learning that did and did not take
place,
the unique work that coaches
undertook
meant that the
conceptualization
of
their
workplace
extended
well beyond the confines of a single physical facility.
The
workplace was
considered
to be anywhere the coaches did coaching work
and
included
locations such as the SIS site, various sporting
grounds,
training
and
competition
facilities, and even the homes of the
coaches
.
So while the workplace of SIS coaches may be
considered
distinct to
most
other
workplaces, it should be
considered
that learning in any
workplace has
unique
features, which in
combination
sets it apart from
learning in other contexts.
Fir
st,
workplace learning is usually task focused with
different tasks and settings offer
ing
different experiences and guidance
opportunities
(Watkins, 1991; Boud &
Garr
ick,
1999; Billett, 2001). This is
certainly true of the work of SIS coaches in that
spor
t
programs are
differentially tiered, with the
particular
tier
determining
access
to
funding
and other resources (e.g. programs are granted varying access
to
physiotherapy,
sport scientists and the like, based on their allocated tiering
with
tier one programs receiving
preferential
allocation of time and

resources). Second,
learning at work occurs in an overtly political and economic
context (Watkins,
1991).
This is particularly apt for the SIS where funding and
resource allocation is
generally
determined
by
government
officials (e.g. the
State
Government
Minister for
Spor
t).
Third,
learning in the workplace is also
cognitively different to learning at
school
where the emphasis is very much
on individual cognition,
achievement
and
the
development
of widely usable
skills. This is in
contrast
to workplaces like the
SIS
where
collaboration,
organizational
success and the
development
of situation specific
competencies
are the aims (Watkins,
1991).
For some
industries,
the workplace is the only place in which workers are
likely
to
develop their practice because of unique work practices or that there
are no (or
v
e
r
y
limited) formal
education opportunities
available. Given that
there are only seve
n
institutes or academies of sport in Australia, the work
requirements
of the SIS may
be considered
to be quite unique and distinctive.
The formal
educational
oppor
tunities
previously available to high
performance
coaches have also been shown to be
quite
limited
(Cushion
et
al., 2003; Rynne
et
al.,
2006).
Finally, learning in the workplace occurs in a social context
characterized
by
status
difference and the risk to one’s livelihood, while
maintaining
a
collaborative
orientation
(Watkins, 1991). Given that there is only one head
coaching
position
available for each sport, some SIS coaches
appeared
to find it
hard to reconcile
their
desire to improve
through connecting
with others to
share their strengths
and
weaknesses, with the need to protect their
privileged
position.
When examining the learning of the SIS coaches, of great interest were the
kinds of learning sources that the SIS made available for their coaches. Of similar
significance
were the sources that the SIS coaches were
prepared
to access, and
the sources
that
they chose not to engage with. As such, the discussion that
follows is premised on
the
notion that learning
throughout
working life is an
inevitable
product
of eve
r
yda
y
thinking and acting and it is shaped by the
work practices in which
individuals
participate
(Billett,
2001).
Theorizing
lear
ning
The
product
view of knowledge and learning has been steadily replaced with
the
focus on the person as a member of a
socio-cultural community
in which
activities,
tasks, functions and
understandings
do not exist in isolation but
rather as a part
o
f
broader systems of relations (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Hager,
2005). In this
wa
y
,
learning can be seen as an active process by which
individuals try to make sense
out
of
information
and experience with prior
knowledge, including beliefs and feelings influencing this process
(National
Board of
Employment Education
and
T
raining
,
1994; Billett, 2000). This

attempt
to expand our
attention
from the learner as
an
‘isolated’ individual
to include focus on the social settings that
construct and
constitute
the
individual as a learner was termed ‘situated learning’ by Lave
and
Wenger
(1991).
The ‘situatedness’ of learning means that learning takes place
in
particular
sets of
circumstances
in time and space and may also refer to the fact
that
learning is social, in so far as it may involve
interaction
between an individual
lear
ner
and others (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Billett, 2000).
Frameworks
associated
with
situated learning have been used in much sport research
including physical
education
(e.g. Kirk &
Macdonald,
1998; Renshaw, 2002) and
coaching settings (e.g. Culver &
Trudel,
2006; Galipeau &
Trudel,
2006). The
analysis involved in this study was primarily facilitated
through
the lens provided
by the concept of
relational
interdependence.
The main reason for choosing
this concept as opposed to
other
s (e.g.
communities
of practice or experiential
learning theories) in examining
coach
learning was that there was scope to
theorize the
relationship
between
individual
learning processes (related to
agency) and collective processes (relating to
str
ucture).
This enabled us to
account for individual differences in perspective,
disposition,
social and
cultural capital and the like (Fenwick,
2001).
As with a
number
of other researchers in the area of workplace and coach
lear
ning
,
Billett (2004) argues against the view that learning is only a formal
process
occur
r
ing
in formally
structured educational
settings like schools.
Instead,
he proposes
that
learning should be viewed as a
consequence
of
everyday thinking and acting and it is about making sense of the things we
encounter throughout
our lives. The
distinction
that is made is that rather than
merely ‘internalizing’ knowledge from social
sources,
or being ‘socialized’,
learning entails an
interpretive
process of knowledge
construc-
tion as well as
the remaking of practice (Billett, 2006). Billett (2006) argues
that
some
accounts of learning in the workplace overly privilege
structure
in the form
o
f
social
contributions
whereas he proposes an increased
consideration
of the
role of agency. Agency can be
thought
of as referring to
intentionality,
subjectivity
and
identity (Billett,
2006).
Jones
et
al. (2002) identified growing
support
for the notion that
coaching is
not
something that is merely delivered, but that it is a dynamic,
social activity in
which
the coach is actively engaged. They go on to endorse the
need to consider the
dual
impact of
structure
and agency on the
construction
of role (Jones
et
al.,
2002).
Billett’s concept of relational
interdependence
is
compatible
with this idea, given
the
key
considerations
of
affordances and agency
inherent
in his theorizing
(Billett,
2006). The key
premise is that neither
structure
nor agency alone is sufficient
to
promote
learning. It is for this reason that relational
interdependence
fits well
with
Armour and Jones’ (2000)
comment
that coaches act both as they choose and
ho
w they are influenced to choose. In
summary,
the
contention
is that

affordances of workplaces shape the array of experiences individuals are able to
access and
these
individuals in turn elect how they engage,
construe
and
construct
what they
are
afforded (Billett
et
al., 2005). The overall assertion is
that there is an
interdepen
dence between the social and the individual world
and the
interaction
between
the
two may be
considered
to be relational
because it is person
dependent
(i.e. the
same
situation is likely to be
experienced
differently by different
people).
Metho
d
The SIS site was chosen for this
examination
due to its
reputation
as a
high
performance
center and its willingness to engage in coaching research.
Prior to
the
commencement
of this research the SIS called for expressions of
interest to
conduct
research in a
number
of areas including coach learning. The
chief investigator did
not
have any pre-existing
relationship
with the
participants
although to
f
acilitate
recruitment
and develop professional
rapport
he was located on-site at the SIS
for
several days, each week for the
duration
of data collection and
analysis
.
All SIS coaches were
appointed
to their positions
through
an interview
process
involving relevant SIS
administrators
and state and national sporting
organization representatives.
The coaches were generally employed on
short-
term contracts (i.e. 1
-
4
years). At the time of the study there were 22 males
and 2 females employed
a
s coaches at the SIS, with an average age of 44 years
(Range
=
30
-
60).
Seven of
the
coaches noted high school as their highest level
of
educational attainment, while
seven
reported undergraduate
university
studies. The rest of the coaches
had
achieved either
community
college
(
n
=
5),
masters
(
n
=
1),
or other
post-secondar
y
education qualifications
(
n
=
4).
Half of the coaches held the highest level of
accreditation/certification
in
their respective sports while the other half had
the
second highest level
possible. Sixteen were coaches of programs designated
as
international
(e.g.
water polo, gymnastics, swimming, cycling), with the
remaining
eight coaches
being involved in elite
developmental
programs (e.g. cricket,
netball,
baseball,
golf). On average, the coaches had been coaching their current sport
for
21.8
years (Range
=
4
-
38)
and had been employed by the SIS for an average of
4.3
years (Range
=
0.2
-
11).
While the individual
achievements
of the coaching group were not a
specific concern in this study, it should be noted that the SIS coaching
group
had
achieved a great degree of success
internationally
in their
respective sports
as
indicated by the
achievement
of more than 30 coaching
awards and the success of their athletes. For example, the gold medal tally of SIS
athletes at the most
recent
Commonwealth
Games (2006) meant that if the

SIS was
considered
to be
a
country, it would have ranked fourth overall
behind only Australia,
England
and
Canada
(and ahead of countries such
as India, South Africa,
Scotland
and
Mala
ysia).
P
a
r
ticipants
During a SIS coaches meeting all 24 SIS coaches were invited by the
chief
investigator to
participate
in
semi-structured
interviews examining their
learning
as
coaches prior to and during their
employment
at the SIS. This verbal
invitation was then followed up by a
personalized
email within one week of the
initial invitation. Six coaches were selected for inclusion based on their
suitability, willingness
and
availability. Regarding suitability, we sought the
involvement of coaches with a
v
ar
iety of ages, program type (i.e.
international
and
developmental),
sport type (e.g.
team
and
individual),
playing
background
(e.g. elite and
non-elite)
and nationality
(i.e.
domestic and foreign). The
resulting purposive sample
(Patton,
2002) involved
four
individual sport coaches
(pseudonyms:
Charlie, Craig, Carl and Calvin) and
tw
o
team sport coaches
representing
direct
interceptive
and indirect
interceptive
sports
(Clarke and
Chris, respectively). One coach was categorized as a foreign coach
while
the
remaining five were Australian in origin.
Further,
four of the coaches we
re
in-charge of programs designated as
international
while two were involved
in
developmental programs
.
A range of
administrators
were identified for possible inclusion in the
study
based
on their current involvement with coaches, their impact on policy
and SIS
str
ucture
and also
through
informal discussions with coaches and
administrators.
All
contacted
parties agreed to be involved and times and
locations for the interviews we
re subsequently negotiated.
The
administrators
ranged in their level of
responsibility
and
authority
from
manager to board
member.
Like the coaches, the majority
o
f
administrators
were
appointed through
an
application
and interview
process
conducted
by SIS
administrators.
The exception was the board members
who
were
chosen by the
incumbent government.
The
pseudonyms
for the
administrators
are Ashley, Aaron, Alistair, Alan, Andrew and
Aiden.
Procedure
Semi-structured
interviews were used in this study because they allowed a
degree of
standardization
and
commonality
between interviews while allowing
the coaches
and
administrators
to discuss issues of
importance
that arose
outside the scope of
the
original line of
questioning.
The
semi-structured
interview protocols took an av
erage
of 82 minutes to
conduct
(Range
=
60
-
110
minutes).
Interview data were
tran-
scribed verbatim and were
subsequently
checked for accuracy and
returned
to
the
participants
for

member checking. The
participants
were asked to check for
accuracy
regarding
the
typography,
and also accuracy with respect to the intent of
their
comments.
It should be noted that this extension of member checking is
not
common
within empirical sport research (Culver
et
al.,
2003).
The process of
interpretational
qualitative analysis involved
partitioning the
relatively
unstructured
textual material into coded chunks
of
information fir
stly
through
the creation of tags which was then followed by
the
generation
of
categorie
s (Coˆte´
et
al., 1993). The
stipulation
was that the
codes be valid
(accurately reflect
what is being
researched),
mutually
exclusive (distinct with no overlap)
and
exhaustive (all relevant data should
fit into a code;
Gratton
& Jones, 2004).
This
process necessarily relied on the
analysts’ subjective
decision-making
process but was
enhanced through
the use
of
decision-making
heuristic developed by Coˆte´
and
Salmela
(1994).
It should
be noted that the categories necessarily remained flexible as they were derived
from data analysis and needed
adjustment
as the
process
continued.
Manual manipulation
of the
unstructured
qualitative data was
aided
through
the use of a qualitative data
management
and analysis software
package
(QSR Nvivo version 7). This helped facilitate the coding of the
data and
the
construction
of meaning units allowing conclusions to be drawn
more efficiently
.
Regarding the process of coding, a major check was the use of
tr
iangulation.
Consideration
was given to variations in responses between
coaches and
adminis
trators as separate groups, and also between individual
coaches and
individual
administrators.
This is somewhat similar to one of the
validity tactics identified
by
Gilbert and
Trudel (2001).
The most significant form
of
triangulation
in this
project
was the use of triangular
consensus.
This has
been variously referred to as
peer
review, peer debriefing and generally refers to
discussing codes or results
with
knowledgeable colleagues who act as
sounding boards (Culver
et
al.,
2003).
Discussions were held with both those
immersed
in the field of sports coaching,
a
s well as those from the fields of
physical
education
pedagogy, and workplace
lear
ning.
Similar to the process
employed by Irwin
et
al. (2004) each
quotation
and theme was
independently
identified by those involved in the discussions and were
debated until
agreement
was
reached.
Results and
discussion
There are a
number
of factors that influenced the learning of the SIS coaches.
These
will be discussed below with specific
consideration
given to sources of
learning
that
were
predominantly
external to the SIS, the affordances made
within the
SIS
workplace and the agency of the coaches. In
combination,

these factors may
be
thought
of as comprising the dialectic between
structure
(physical and
social
affordances of the SIS workplace) and
agency
(intentionality,
subjectivity
and
identity). The
interaction
of these
elements will then be discussed with
reference
to the notion of relational
interdependence.
External
sources
of
lear
ning
The sources of learning outside of the direct influence of the SIS that the
coaches
continued
to engage with were generally
restricted
to self-directed reading
and
interactions
with a very small
number
of
trusted confidantes
(within and
outside of their sports). Reading materials can be
surreptitiously
accessed
meaning there is
no
need to reveal an area of perceived weakness or
vulnerability to others.
Similarly
,
when discussing learning from other coaches
within their sport, a major issue was with respect to the highly competitive
nature of the elite
environment:
Craig
said,
‘there is this protective thing
because they [other coaches in my sport] coach some of the athletes that are
direct
competitors
to my athletes.’ Similarly, Chris relayed
a conversation
he
once had with one of the top coaches in his
spor
t:
I’ve heard a highly regarded coach say ‘I’ll give you a piece of
advice ... don’t give ‘em all your knowledge’ ... he was talking
about other coaches. ‘You’ve got to
keep
some of it to yourself so
you’ve got an
edge.
’
To be able to have discussions, which touch on the issues that are
important
to
high
performance
sport coaches, there is a large
amount
of trust involved.
Regarding
this,
Chris said, ‘it takes a long time for people to really trust you ...
and also respect
y
o
u
enough to want to talk
through
some issues.’ It is the length
of time taken to
establish
this
rapport
(generally over many years) that was an
issue for the coaches. The ov
erall
impression gained was that these coaches
were quite socially and
professionally
isolated.
Workplace affo
rdances
Aaron noted, ‘[the SIS provides a
computer
and phone access so] you can get
onto
the web and websites and you can send emails and ask people questions’.
The
basic
provision of this
support
means that coaches are potentially well
positioned
to
access
a range of people and resources that would otherwise be
at a significant
per
sonal
financial cost. More broadly, Chris
commented
‘[being
in this job] has put me in
a
situation where I could become involved and be
much more active about
lear
ning
’
.
He
elaborated
on this by saying that by
holding a full-time coaching position at
the
SIS, his drive to
continue
to
learn and develop his coaching knowledge was justifiable. He also noted that
because of his position as a SIS coach, he had access
to
other coaches and

organizations
that he would not otherwise be able or eligible
to
access.
The coaching experiences that SIS coaches gained since
commencing
work at
the
SIS were also noted as a source that was reportedly making a
continued contribution
to the learning of the coaches. Charlie
emphasized
this
by saying, ‘you learn to be
a
coach by coaching’. Providing further empirical
support
is the large
amount of
coaching literature highlighting the
contribution
of previous experience to
coaching
expertise (e.g. Abraham
et
al.,
2006; Coˆ te´, 2006; Gilbert
et
al., 2006; Nelson &
Cushion,
2006;
Telles-
Langdon
&
Spooner,
2006;
Trudel
& Gilbert, 2006; Way & O’Leary, 2006;
Werthner
&
Trudel,
2006). The ability to make expedited or at
least
more
educated
decisions was something that was identified by the SIS coaches as
a
contribution
previous coaching experiences made to current coaching work.
Clarke
said, ‘what I can see in a player now is, if they are having issues in their
life that
are
going to affect down the track I can pick up on that a lot earlier and
confront them
’
.
The advantage of learning from previous coaching experiences
was
thought
to be
that
it was highly specific to their practice but as Eraut (2004)
cautioned,
there is a
need
to consider what counts as experience. While the
specifics of human
cognition
involved in learning is beyond the
immediate
scope of this paper, suffice it to say
that
the mere
accumulation
of experience is
not sufficient to facilitate meaningful
lear
ning
(Eraut,
2004; Lynch & Mallett,
2006).
Coaches
reported
learning from their
engagement
with novel work
situations often
using the phrase ‘thrown in the deep end’ to describe their
exposure to tasks
and
responsibilities
that were largely unfamiliar to them. For
example, Calvin said,
‘
that
’
s how you get better, by being thrown in the deep end
and struggling a bit’. This
quote
gives the impression that coaches are being
asked to perform work that they are
not
well
prepared
to
undertake,
hence
creating the need to swim or else sink. Related
to
this is the notion of trial and
error, and while trial and error is a recognized
lear
ning
strategy, it may not be
the most efficient in a variety of
situations.
This is in
keeping
with the results of
Irwin
et
al. (2004) who found that while learning in this way was
a
major source
for coaches, it was not necessarily by
choice.
Other members of staff including other SIS coaches and a range of
support staff
such as sport scientists, psychologists and strength and
conditioners
could also
be considered
to be a source of learning. While these
other members of staff were
a
potentially generative source, coaches did
not tend to access them with
much
regularity. For some coaches, it was
simply not possible to engage with
cer
tain
individuals because access was
not granted by the SIS (e.g. programs
designated
as
‘developmental’
had
limited access to sports science and strength
and
conditioning support
staff). In this way, the SIS affordance was limited.
There
were also a
number
of
agency-dependant
reasons for this that will be
discussed
in
greater detail later in this paper. Finally, other SIS staff members generally

did
not have a great deal of scope in their job to interact beyond a basic
ser
vice provision
function.
To
summarise,
the affordances of the SIS included the potential for
interaction
with human
partners
and
non-human
artifacts (e.g.
templates
and previous
repor
t
formats). While the relative
contributions
of these
affordances were
somewhat
idiosyncratic,
the impact on learning could be
considered
to be fairly limited. It was the provision of full-time
employment
and the associated learning that
occur
red through
engaging in daily
coaching experiences that was reportedly the
g
reatest
factor with respect to
coach
development.
It is interesting to note that the ability
to
learn from
coaching experience while employed in the SIS did not rely
on
organizational
affordances beyond the provision of basic working
conditions
(e.g.
contract
for full-time
employment,
phone and internet access). Outside
of this,
the
SIS workplace affordances might be
considered
to be at best
somewhat limited and
at
worst potentially
constraining,
regarding coach
lear
ning.
Workplaces, by their
nature,
are not benign entities. They have
explicit
and
implicit goals and practices that direct and guide what is learnt
and what is
v
alued.
Rather than being without intent, the SIS workplace
activities and
interactions
we
re
highly
structured
and
regulated.
Within the SIS,
factors such as the
prioritization of
programs and the tiering of service provision
allocations serve to regulate
par
ticipa
tion in a range of potentially generative
situations
including
interactions
with
other
members of staff (previously
identified as a primary source of coach learning).
Those
invited to
participate
fully in work practices are afforded richer learning than
those
who are not
(Billett, 2001). The isolated and competitive nature of the SIS
coaches
’
work
compounds
this potential problem further (i.e. the
structure,
including
the
prevailing social
environment
of high
performance
coaching, may serve to
fur
ther
inhibit
lear
ning).
Ag
enc
y
It must be
acknowledged
that situational factors alone are insufficient to
under
stand
workplaces as learning
environments.
While it might be
considered
that the SIS has
a
responsibility to make affordances that have strong
invitational qualities, the
SIS
coaches clearly exercised their agency when
deciding which activities to engage
in
and the degree of their
engagement.
In
addition to exercising it in a variety of way
s,
the SIS coaches cited a range of
factors that served to influence and direct
their
agenc
y
.
Across a range of learning
opportunities,
the SIS coaches and
administrators cited
various positive influences that led to coach
engagement.
It should be noted
that
these ranged from being largely external to being
predominantly
internal to
the
individual. The most significant external reason

to
continue
to learn that the
SIS
coaches cited was the athletes, as indicated
by Craig’s
comment,
‘the athletes
[dr
iv
e
my efforts to learn]. Yeah their
development
. . . seeing them get better’. It might
be
argued that improving
athlete
performance
is also somewhat internal to the
coach
given how athlete
success reflects on their coaching abilities. It did, however,
appear
as though
the coaches gained much joy and personal satisfaction from seeing
the
athletes in their charge
impro
ve.
One of the more personal reasons coaches gave for wanting to
improve
their
practice was because they had a passion or great personal
interest in their
spor
t.
When asked about why he wants to
continue
to
improve his coaching, Craig said, ‘I do it for passion, I don’t do it for money or
anything. I do it because I want to’. It was clear that the SIS coaches had an
extremely high
commitment
to the work that
they
performed.
Their personal
identities
appeared
to be very closely tied to
their
coaching work and as
such it might be argued that the subjectivities and identities of these individuals
may be even more
important
to the learning that occurs than
in
other
domains of work where working and personal identities may be more div
ergent.
In addition to having a specific personal interest or passion in their chosen
spor
t,
there was some suggestion that the SIS coaches were driven to be the
best.
Craig
said, ‘I am always going to learn from whoever because I want to be
the best’.
Clarke
was equally as ardent saying, ‘I want to be the best in my sport’.
Again, this
suggests
that for many coaches, their identity is closely tied with
being successful (and
for
some this meant being the
best).
The coaches and
administrators
spoke equally as strongly about a range
of
f
actor
s that caused
reduced engagement.
While the coaches generally
acknowledged
a
need
to
continue
to learn, when asked why they chose not to
engage with certain
lear
ning opportunities
their response often revolved
around
there not being enough time to
do
so. For example, Calvin said, ‘we are so busy
going about our
day-to-day business
that we don’t really look outside what we
are doing’. However,
administrator Andrew
said, ‘if something is really good they
[coaches] will make time to access it
because
they can see that’s a way of
fulfilling their primary purpose’. It is this final point
by
Andrew that
counters
some of the claims by coaches and
administrators
that the
SIS
coaches may not
have enough time to engage in meaningful learning. While it is
acknowledged
that
these coaches are ‘time poor’ it is the
prioritization
of
other
activities ahead
of specific learning activities that is the issue. Some
par
ticularly
strong
comments
regarding why certain learning
opportunities
were not
pr
ioritized
came from the coaches: Chris said, ‘I do what I am rewarded for’ with
the
implication
being that learning was not particularly well recognized or
rewarded
by
the SIS. In this way, the organization’s strong emphasis on
performance outcomes
had the potential to reduce the
prioritization
of
learning activities. The
problem
appeared
to be the emphasis on relatively

short-term
and
immediate outcomes for
these coaches. Because of this,
coaches may have been focused on the
da
y-to-da
y
optimization
of their work
rather than taking a more strategic and
longer-ter
m
developmental
view. In
short, the need for
short-term
results potentially
inhibited
learning beyond the
immediate
exper
ience.
The other major factor that reportedly led to
reduced engagement
in
significant
learning within the organization was the potentially
threatening
nature of
revealing
areas of weakness to other members of staff. Aiden said,
‘coaches have egos, and
I
think some of the better coaches have bigger egos ...
[a possible barrier to learning
is]
being seen to be a bit
inexperienced
in
something and being a bit afraid to
ask
’
.
Aaron noted that an admission by a
coach that they do not know something can
be
personally
threatening.
He gave
an example from the perspective of a coach who is unable to complete the
budget:
Why am I going to go
around
and talk to someone in finance to tell
them that I
a
m
an absolute
dill?
... I’m not going to say that because
then that word gets back
to
[the boss] who says ‘oh you are a dill. We
don’t want you’.
(Aaron)
Given the problems associated with accessing
knowledgeable
others within
other
state, national or
international
sporting
organizations,
and the
potential threat of accessing those within the SIS, the sources that SIS coaches
were
prepared
to
access
were significantly
nar
ro
we
d.
For the SIS coaches, potential barriers to learning that their
agency
must
overcome
extended
far beyond overcoming apathy or accessing
‘difficult to
find
’
opportunities.
The
fundamentally
competitive nature of elite
sport
performance
and high
performance
coaching meant that sources that
were highly valued
by
coaches (e.g. learning from other coaches) were also
extremely difficult to access. As
mentioned
in the previous discussion of
external sources of learning,
interactions
were typically guarded and the kinds
of generative
relationships
that coaches
require
at the high
performance
level
took extremely long periods of time to establish.
While
this issue may appear to
be primarily associated with the affordance (the
par
ticular
source), in actuality
it is an agency issue for the SIS coaches given that the nature of the affordance is
unlikely to change (i.e. the guarded and highly competitive nature of high
performance
sport is unlikely to change in the near future). For this reason, it is
up to the
particular
coach regarding how
persistent,
open and agentic they will
be
in
fostering these
interactions.
This recurring theme of
occupational
isolation
resonates
well with the plight of the small business
operators
described in the
work of
Billett
et
al.
(2003).
But while competitive aspects are present in a
range of vocations
and
professions, it is the
unequivocally
competitive nature
and regular
comparisons of
achievement
present in coaching work that render
the sport coaching w
orkplace
unique. It is for this reason that coaches may

experience professional isolation
in
quite different ways to those in the
business world. Regardless, it is likely that
in situations
such as these,
individuals will have to be highly agentic in their actions
and
thinking if they are
to
continue
to
deve
lop
.
While the
contribution
of agency to learning was evident
throughout
the
careers of the SIS coaches, the actions it directed and the conviction with
which the
coaches
pursued opportunities appeared
to fluctuate
depending
on
their career and
coaching
circumstances.
As a general rule, the more secure and
comfortable
the coaches felt
in
their coaching and
employment
status, the
stronger their agency
appeared
to
be.
Clarke
appeared
to be
confident
and
secure in his coaching and as such he was
prepared
to pursue his own learning
opportunities:
‘I’ve initiated the whole
collection
of items [texts and other
library resources] on my sport here because there was nothing when I came’.
He also said ‘I’ve secured my own mentors and speak to
them
regularly and
some of them within this
organization
’
.
Given that we have previously
established
that the individual’s
perceptions
of
the
workplace affordances are critical to learning, it is perhaps
unsurprising
that
coaches
appeared
most
reluctant
to engage during
periods of threat or
insecur
ity
.
This
threatening
nature of revealing one’s
perceived weaknesses was noted by
the
previous
comment
by Aaron about a
coach not wanting to ‘look like a dill’, and
by
Aiden regarding coaches often
having big egos. This might be viewed as
highly
problematic
given that coaches
may require the greatest learning assistance when
in
positions where they feel
threatened
or
insecure.
Perhaps agency may be
characterized
as having different forms and
intensity
during a person’s life. It may be however, that agency remains
relatively
constant
(while in a
constant
state of
transformation)
but the ways in
which it is enacted
are
influenced by the
particular
social context and
circumstance.
Regardless, it is
clear
that along with the
organizational
affordances, the agency of the SIS coaches was
a
critical factor in relation to the
learning that did and did not
occur
.
Relational interdependence between affordances
and
agency
Billett (2006) noted that there is a range of perspectives given regarding the
influence
of agency and
structure
ranging from accounts where agency is seen
as illusory,
to
perspectives that grant individual
autonomy
and to perspectives
that
acknow
ledge
interaction
between the two. Billett (2006) himself advocates
a
consideration
of
the
interdependence
between the individual and the
social when describing
lear
ning through engagement
in work practices. The
key premise of his work is
supported by
the findings of this research given the
previously described influence of both
the
affordances of the SIS and the agency
of the
coaches
.

As seen in the section immediately preceding this, the agency of the
individual was critical to the learning that did and did not occur. It may be
suggested that
in situations
where
organizational
affordances are weak,
poor or
constraining, the
individual (in this case the coaches) will have to
become highly agentic if
meaningful
learning is to occur. But regardless of the
situation,
agency does not act in
isolation.
Indeed,
the invitational qualities
of the SIS workplace affordances
influenced
the involvement of the coaches
and these qualities and affordances included
the
physicality of the worksite(s),
the types of activities individuals engaged in (i.e.
the
work tasks that were
valued); the direct and indirect guidance accessible (e.g.
tier
ing
of access to
sport scientists); the
duration
of
participation
(i.e. related to
contract
length);
and how the activities related to individuals’ existing knowledge base
(also
incorporating
their
interest).
In short, SIS affordances were made in ways that
ser
ved
to alter (positively or negatively) the agency and
subsequent
engagement
of
the
individual
coach.
What was not immediately obvious from the SIS data was how the
individual
’
s agency served to alter the affordances made. However, on further
examination
it
did
appear that for coaches who had actively
pursued
a range of
developmental activities
(e.g. Clarke), that
additional opportunities
(e.g.
the
opportunity
to spend
an extended
period of time with mentor coaches in
the national
program)
had
presented
themselves and
administrators appeared
to be more
forthcoming
with
support.
It was also somewhat evident that once
certain
opportunities
were successfully provided
for
a
particular
coach, that
other coaches generally enjoyed increased accessibility to
that
opportunity
(or
type of
opportunity).
A stronger and more obvious
indication
of
ho
w agency
served to alter the affordances offered was with respect to
reduced coach
engagement.
When coaches failed to engage with certain affordances,
these
affordances were not
promoted
or were often times removed: ‘Early on
there we
re
quite good little things [e.g. courses and seminars] that used to
crop up that
y
o
u
could go to that don’t seem to happen quite as much now’
(Charlie).
In these examples, the agency and affordances were
interacting
in
interdependent
ways with respect to coach learning. This situation might
almost be
characterized as
being somewhat cyclical in that
organizational
affordances influenced agency
and
agency influenced affordances (in both
positive and negative ways). In short,
the
agenc
y
-
str
ucture
dialectic appears
to be
interdependent.
Conclusion
The SIS coaches expressed a desire to
continue
to improve and this was
reportedly
fueled by personal factors including a love of the sport they coached

and wanting
to
be the best, as well as external factors such as wanting to assist
their athletes to
be
successful. While there were a range of affordances made
by the SIS, it was
evident
that coach agency influenced how coaches
construed
what the workplace
afforded
and how worthy it was of their
participation.
Regarding coach
engagement, the
sources of learning specific to the SIS
were generic offerings (e.g.
full-time
employment,
internet access), other
members of staff (e.g. sport scientists,
other
SIS coaches), and most notably,
learning on the job (e.g. performing coaching
tasks).
While these affordances
were identifiable, they were certainly not without
problems
.
There were barriers
(and enablers) that were
organizational
(e.g. tiering of
prog
rams)
and personal
(e.g.
ego-threatening,
drive to improve) in
nature.
The SIS provides a unique workplace for the 24 employed coaches. The
policies
and practices of the SIS
administration
have an influence over what is
provided
to
coaches and also how attractive it is to engage with those
provisions. The
previously
discussed example describing the
reduced
prioritization
of learning activities by
SIS
coaches due to the organization’s
focus on relatively
short-term
performance outcomes
serves to characterize
this influence. As a result,
organizations
such
as
the SIS should be urged to
recognize the workplace as a legitimate site of
coach
learning and review the
policies and working
conditions
accordingly. This
wo
uld
allow the SIS to move
toward a situation where learning is
promoted
as an eve
r
yda
y
function of
thinking and acting in the workplace.
Underpinning
this
mo
v
ement
would
be the
establishment
of more regular, deliberate and systematic
approaches
to
the provision and
monitoring
of SIS
affordances.
In
particular,
there is a need
to
consider the invitational qualities of the variety of learning experiences present
in
the
workplace and take steps to continually improve these
affordances
.
With respect to the unique workplace of SIS coaches, the notion of
relational
interdependence
was useful for
understanding
the
agenc
y
-
str
ucture
dialectic.
The
reason for this is the strong theoretical
consideration
of
the contexts and
interactions
afforded in work settings while directing
attention
to the agency of the
individual.
The data from the SIS coaches and
administrators
lend
support
for Billett’s
notion
that the
organizational
affordances and agency significantly impact on the
lear
ning
that is possible for
wo
rker
s
.
More than discrete physical and social
environments,
workplaces can be
viewed
as
something
negotiated
and
constructed through
the
interdependent
processes of affordance and
engagement.
As a result, workplaces such as the SIS
may be
best
understood
in terms that include the physical, social and
educational
provisions of the organization and the
par
ticipants
’
interests,
identities and subjectivities.
These
aspects have been discussed
throughout
this paper and it is evident that
the
affordances and the agency are
interdependent
with respect to coach
lear
ning.

The largely exploratory nature of this research and the use of a case
study
design
meant that these findings cannot be generalized. There is
opportunity
for
researcher
s in other contexts to
continue
to consider the
environments
in which full-time
high
performance
coaches operate as sites of
workplace learning. Similarly, it may
be
worthwhile to examine other high
performance
coaching
environments including
other
government-funded
institutions
(e.g. State and
Federal),
as well as
pr
iv
ate
sporting
organizations
(e.g. professional sporting
associations)
using
relational
interdependence
as a
theoretical lens. This would allow
comparison between
different sporting
sites as well as providing further
opportunities
to examine
the
utility of the
concept of relational
interdependence.
There was some
indication
in this project that aspects of agency
fluctuated
ov
er
the course of the coaches’ careers and that
organizational
affordances also
v
a
r
ied
over the life of the
organization.
However, the
underlying
mechanisms
and
reasons
for the relational
interaction
and the
fluctuations
in agency and
affordances
remained somewhat less obvious.
Future
research that is
longitudinal
in
nature
would allow a better
characterization
of these variations and the
interdependent
nature of their
interaction
between coach agency and
organizational affordances
.
Similarly, it
would be possible to further examine the
str
ucture
-
agenc
y
dialectic
with
respect to the perceived
intellectual,
physical and social isolation described
by
the
coaches
.
The results from each of the
aforementioned
future research directions
would
add
to the
burgeoning
body of research investigating how coaches learn
to perform
their
difficult and
demanding
work.
Future
research in these areas
would also help
direct
the
organizations
that rely on the services of coaches
regarding how to facilitate
the
learning of this
important
g
roup
.
Reference
s
Abraham,
A., Collins, D. &
Martindale,
R. (2006) The coaching schematic:
validation
through
expert coach
consensus,
Journal
of
Sports
Sciences
,
24(6),
549
-
564.
Armour, K. M. & Jones, R. L. (2000) The practical heart within: the value of
the sociology
in
sport, in: K. M. Armour & R. L. Jones (Eds)
Sociology
of
sport: theory
and
practice
(Essex,
Longman), 1
-
10.
Billett, S. (2000)
Guided
learning at work,
Journal
of
Workplace Learning,
12(7),
272
-
285.
Billett, S. (2001) Learning
throughout
working life:
interdependencies
at
work, Studies in
Continuing Education,
23(1),
19
-
35.
Billett, S. (2004) Workplace
participatory
practices:
conceptualising
workplaces as

lear
ning environments,
Journal
of
Workplace Learning,
16(6),
312
-
324.
Billett, S. (2006) Relational
interdependence
between social and individual
agency in work
and
working life, Mind,
Culture
and Activity, 13(1),
53
-
69.
Billett, S., Ehrich, L. &
Hernon-Tinning,
B. (2003) Small business pedagogic
practices,
Journal
of
Vocational Education
and Training, 55(2),
149
-
167.
Billett, S., Smith, R. & Barker, M. (2005)
Understanding
work, learning and
the remaking of cultural practices,
Studies
in
Continuing Education,
27(3),
219
-
237.
Boud, D. & Garrick, J. (1999)
Understandings
of workplace learning, in: D.
Boud & J.
Garr
ick (Eds)
Understanding learning
at work
(London, Routledge),
1
-
12.
Coˆ
t
e
´
, J. (2006) The
development
of coaching knowledge,
International Journal
of
Sports Science
and
Coaching,
1(3),
217
-
222.
Coˆ
t
e
´
, J. & Salmela, J. H. (1994) A
decision-making
heuristic for the analysis of
unstructured
qualitative data,
Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 78,
465
-
466.
Coˆ
t
e
´
, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A. & Russell, S. J. (1993) Organising and
interpreting
unstructured
qualitative data, The
Sport
Psycholo
g
ist
,
7,
127
-
137.
Culver, D. M., Gilbert, W. &
Trudel,
P. (2003) A decade of qualitative research in
sport
psychology
journals:
1990
-
1999,
The
Sport Psychologist,
17,
1
-
15.
Culver, D. M. &
Trudel,
P. (2006)
Cultivating
coaches’
communities
of practice:
developing
the
potential for learning
through interactions,
in: R. Jones
(Ed) The
sports coach as
educator:
re-conceptualising sports coaching
(London,
Routledge), 97
-
112.
Cushion,
C. J., Armour, K. M. & Jones, R. L. (2003) Coach
education
and
continuing professional
development:
experience and learning to coach,
QUEST, 55,
215
-
230.
Eraut, M. (2004) Informal learning in the workplace,
Studies
in Continuing
Education,
26(2),
247
-
273.
Fenwick, T. (2001) Tides of change: New themes and
questions
in workplace
learning, New
Directions for
Adult and
Continuing Education,
92,
3
-
17.
Galipeau,
J. &
Trudel,
P. (2006) Athlete learning in a
community
of practice: is
there a role for
the
coach? in: R. Jones (Ed)
The sports coach as
educator
:
reconceptualising sports coaching
(London,
Routledge),
77
-
94.
Gilbert, W., Coˆ te´, J. & Mallett, C. (2006) The talented coach:
developmental
paths
and
activities of successful sport coaches,
International Journal of Sport
Science
and Coaching, 1(1),
69
-
76.
Gilbert, W. &
Trudel,
P. (2001) Learning to coach
through
experience: reflection
in model
you
th
sport coaches,
Journal
of
Teaching
in
Physical Education,
21,
16
-
34.
Gratton,
C. & Jones, I. (2004)
Research methods
for
sport studies
(London,
Routledge).
Hager, P. (2005) The
importance
of
contextuality
for learning, paper

presented
at the
4th
International
Conference
on
Researching
Work and
Learning
December 12
-
14
(University of
Technology,
Sydney,
Australia).
Irwin, G.,
Hanton,
S. & Kerwin, D. G. (2004) Reflective practice and the origins of
elite
coaching
knowledge,
Reflectiv
e
Practice,
5(3),
425
-
442.
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M. & Potrac, P. (2002)
Understanding
the coaching
process: a
framework
for social analysis, QUEST, 54,
34
-
48.
Kirk, D. &
Macdonald,
D. (1998)
Situated
learning in physical
education,
Journal
of
Teaching
in
Physical Education,
17,
376
-
387.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning:
legitimate peripheral
participation
(Cambr
idge,
Cambridge
University
Press).
Lynch, M. & Mallett, C. (2006) Becoming a successful high
performance
track
and field
coach,
Modern Athlete
and
Coach,
22(2),
15
-
20.
National
Board of
Employment Education
and
Training
(1994)
Workplace learning
in
the
prof
essional
development
of
teachers: commissioned report
N
o
.
24. Report
commissioned
by the
Australian
Sports
Commission (Canberra,
Australian
Government
Publishing
Ser
vices).
Nelson, L. J. &
Cushion,
C. J. (2006) Reflection in coach
education:
the case
of the
national
governing body coaching certificate,
The Sport Psychologist,
20,
174
-
183.
Patton,
M. Q. (2002) Qualitativ
e
research
and
evaluation methods
(3rd edn)
(London,
Sage).
Renshaw, P. (2002) Learning and
community,
The Australian Educational
Researcher
,
29(2),
1
-
13.
Rynne, S. B., Mallett, C. &
Tinning,
R. (2006) High
performance
sport coaching: institutes of sport as sites for learning,
International Journal
of
Sport Science
and Coaching,
1(3),
223
-
233.
Telles-Langdon,
D. M. &
Spooner,
T. K. (2006) Coaches as professionals: the
professionalization
of coaching in
Canada,
Coaches
Plan, 13(1),
8
-
13
&
42
-
49.
Trudel,
P. & Gilbert, W. (2006)
Coaching
and coach
education,
in: D. Kirk, D.
Macdonald
& M. O’Sullivan (Eds)
The handbook
of
physical education
(London,
Sage),
516
-
539.
Watkins, K. E. (1991) Facilitating
learning
in
the workplace
(Victoria, Deakin
University
Press).
Way, R. & O’Leary, D. (2006)
Long-term
coach
development concept,
Coaches Plan,
12(3),
24
-
31.
Werthner,
P. &
Trudel,
P. (2006) A new theoretical perspective for
understanding
how
coaches
learn to coach,
The Sport Psychologist,
20,
198
-
212.