METHOD

For this thesis, my primary aim was to examine coach-athlete interactions prior to

performance. To achieve this, I examined coach-player interactions between four coach-

player dyads in sub-elite basketball teams, using a multi-method design. For each coach-

player dyad, I completed four linked phases (see Figure 3.1). The four phases included: (a)

a pre-match coach interview, (b) observation and video recording of a game, (c) a post-

game interview with a key player, and (d) a post-game video interview with the coach. In

Phase 1, I interviewed the coach, focusing on his/her intended pre-game preparations for

the participating player and the team before a match.

Figure 3.1. Flow diagram and timeline of the four data collection methods.

Phase 1: Coach

interview

Phase 2: Training

observation

Phase 3: Player interview

Phase 4: VCSRI

Phase 2: Game day

observations

1-2 weeks before

game day

2-3 days before game

day

Game day

1-2 days after game

day

1-2 weeks after game

In phase 2, I observed and recorded the final training session prior to the match

and the final hour before a match. I used non-participant observation (see Patton, 2002) to

analyse the interactions between the coach and player. For each dyad, to examine the

extent of agreement between coaches’ previously stated intentions and their observed

behaviour. In Phase 3, I interviewed the selected or participating player from each dyad

regarding their perceptions of coach behaviour. In the interview, I focused on how the

player perceived their coach to influence their pre-game preparations. In the fourth phase,

I interviewed the coaches again, using the Verbal Cued Stimulated Recall Interview

(VCSRI, Gilbert & Trudel, 2000; Gilbert et al., 1999; Trudel, Haughian et al., 1996)

technique. In this interview, I presented to the coaches edited sections of the game

recorded in Phase 2 and asked them to discuss and explain their behaviours and decisions.

I then compared and contrasted the results from each phase to gain a more detailed

understanding of coach-athlete interactions prior to performance. Throughout data

collection and analysis, I applied grounded theory and the constant comparative method of

analysis (see, Glaser, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Participants

Four teams playing in Australian Basketball Association conferences participated

in the study. Team A and Team D were female teams coached by females, whereas Team

B and Team C were both male teams coached by males. The age range for the participants

was between 19 and 27 years of age (M = 22.75) for the players’ and between 27 and 46

years of age (M = 33.75) for the coaches. To ensure the confidentiality of all participants, I

have used pseudonyms. Teams will be known as Team A, Team B, Team C, and Team D.

Coaches corresponding to those teams are known as Coach Amy, Coach Bruce, Coach

Carl, and Coach Donna. The pseudonyms for the targeted players’ for those four teams are

Ally, Brad, Campbell, and Debbie respectively. In order to ensure continuity and clarity

throughout the thesis, the names chosen for each team, the coach and selected player begin

with the same letter of the alphabet as I have used to identify that particular team, e.g.,

Team A, Coach Amy, and Ally. Other names and personnel referred to in the study will

also be given pseudonyms.

The Competition

The competition that the players competed in, the ABA, is a sub-elite competition

that is seen as the feeder league to the national leagues National Basketball League and

Women’s National Basketball League in Australia. The league comprises a combination

of national and international level, professional players. The competition is played in 5

different conferences across Australia with national finals held each year compromising of

the conference winners and wildcard entrants. Furthermore, in order, to aid international

readers’ knowledge of how basketball operates in Australia a section titled “Basketball in

Australia” (see Appendix E) is included. In this section, I explain the differences (cultural,

financial, and social) between basketball in North America and Australia. In addition, I

have included a description of the results of the games in Appendix F.

Theoretical Saturation and Theoretical Sampling

I initially aimed to determine the number of participants through theoretical

saturation and theoretical sampling. This means that I would continue sampling and

collecting data from coaches and players until no new or relevant data emerge from the

data collection and analysis process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In the current study,

however, I ceased data collection after four dyads were completed. The number of

participants was limited due to the amount of in-depth data gathered from each team,

status of the participants, the somewhat intrusive nature of the study, and the difficulty in

gaining access to participants in the pre-performance environment. In particular, the

difficulty of gaining access to dressing rooms and the length of time taken to collect and

analyse the data limited the number of dyads that could be investigated for this thesis. It is

unclear whether theoretical saturation was reached in this study.

In this thesis, I used Theoretical Sampling (TS) to guide my data collection and

analysis. TS was used in the process of data collection to aid in the development of the

emerging patterns and of a theory or model (Glaser, 1998). Glaser described TS as the

conscious process that constantly focuses and delimits the collection and analysis of the

data. Specifically, Glaser stated that TS is the process of selectively sampling participants

suited to the area of study. In this study, I used the emerging themes and data from the

initial dyads to guide my selection of participants and to minimise the collection of large

amounts of unrelated data. Glaser suggested that the use of TS results in an ideational

sample, not a representative sample and is akin to a purposeful sampling technique. Based

on this approach, I identified the coaches of four teams, who agreed to participate. I then

identified one player from each team with the aid and advice from the coach. The teams,

coaches, and players are described in the following sections.

Team A

This team was a sub-elite women’s team based in an Australian Basketball

Association (ABA) competition in Victoria. The team comprised players’ aged between

17-38 years old, with an average age of 23 years. The coach, Amy, was a 46-year-old

female with over 25 years of experience in basketball as a player and coach. Amy was in

her second season coaching Team A. The player selected to participate in the dyad was

Ally. Ally was a 23 year-old point guard with 11 years playing experience. She had

played for three years in the ABA with Team A.

Team B

This was a men’s team playing in the ABA with an average of 22 years of age. The

coach of the team, Bruce, was a former player. Bruce was a 32-year-old, was in his sixth

season of coaching Team B. The player selected to participate in the dyad was Brad. Brad

was a 22 year-old centre/forward, who had entered basketball at a later stage, beginning to

play in his late teens. Brad had been playing for five years altogether, in the ABA and two

years with Team B.

Team C

This was a men’s team also competing in the ABA in Victoria. The coach, Carl,

was 30 year old and had been coaching for fifteen years. Carl was in his fourth straight

season as a full-time coach with Team C. The player selected to participate in the dyad

was Campbell, was a 27 year-old point guard and team captain. Campbell had been

playing for 20 years in total and for six years with Carl and Team C.

Team D

This was a women’s team competing in an ABA competition in Victoria. The

average age of players’ in Team D was 20 years of age. The coach, Donna, was a 27-year-

old player, who was in her first year of coaching at Team D and in her first year of

coaching in the ABA. The player selected to participate in the dyad, Debbie, was a 19-

year-old player in her first year with Team D. Debbie had also played in the national

league (the top level in Australia) with Donna.

Research Design and Grounded Theory Methods

For this thesis, my focus was on understanding coach-athlete interactions

immediately prior to performance. To achieve this, I used a combination of different

qualitative methods to aid my understanding of the research topic and to explore the

perceptions of coach and athlete behaviour from different perspectives. In the first

phase, I used semi-structured interviews with the coach to explore their stated intentions.

In the second phase, I used observation and video recording to examine coaches’ actual

behaviour and their interactions with their players’ in training and before a match. In the

third phase, I used semi-structured interviews to examine the players’ perceptions of their

coaches’ behaviour prior to the recorded game to understand how they perceive the coach

to have influenced their preparation. Finally, in the fourth phase, I edited the videotape

from the second phase and showed selected scenes to the coach to elicit the rationale

behind their decisions and behaviours in the pre-match environment. By using four

different perspectives and multiple methods, I was able to investigate the coaches’

intended behaviours, their actual behaviours, the athletes’ perceptions of the coaches’

behaviour, and the coaches’ reflection and explanation of their behaviour. Patton (2002)

stated that multiple methods enhance research by balancing out the strengths and

limitations of each method being applied.

I applied grounded theory methods as the procedures are designed to incorporate

simultaneous data collection, data analysis, and presentation throughout the research

process. In grounded theory, researchers investigate a topic using an inductive approach,

where the researcher does not use a preconceived theory or model to drive the research.

Instead, the researcher uses simultaneous data collection and analysis to generate concepts

and theories that are then used to guide the research questions, until saturation of the data

is reached. The premise of grounded theory is to reduce researchers’ bias during data

analysis and provide a theory/model that is grounded in the data and not interpreted or

conceptualised by the researcher on the basis of existing theoretical frameworks (Glaser,

1992; 1998; 2001; 2003). Glaser and Strauss (1967) declared that theory derived in this

manner is more likely to resemble “reality” than theory derived through pre-conceived

theory and interpretation. Glaser (1992) stated that the theory that emerges, really exists in

the data, when compared to a logically-deduced theory grounded in the researchers’

interpretations of the data.

Eccles, Walsh, and Ingledew (2002) proposed that there are two major strengths of

grounded theory methods. First, interviews used in a grounded theory approach yield rich,

diverse, and detailed information, focused on generating specific information elicited in

the combined data collection analysis process. As data collection continued, the data that I

collected became more refined and more topic specific. As there was limited information

on coaching immediately prior to performance, I was able to generate information from

the coaches, then focus on the emerging themes, and gradually funnel toward topic

specific data. Second, in ground theory the elicited information is analysed inductively,

allowing the researcher to construct theory that is generated straight from the data. In

contrast, a pre-conceived hypothetical-deductive research approach can be limited by the

constraints of prior theory and preconceived ideas or beliefs (Glaser, 1998; 2003). Eccles

et al., and Charmaz (2005) stated that this process allows a truer or more grounded theory

to emerge. In current research, a more grounded theory of coach-athlete interactions prior

to performance could be generated through GT methods than through the adoption of an

existing theoretical framework such as the Mediational Model (see, Smoll & Smith, 1989).

A benefit of this research approach is that, I was able to compare any model/theory

generated through GT to the existing frameworks. In addition, I selected GT for this study

because it offers a systematic approach for researching significant aspects (e.g., contextual

and situational information) of the coaching process that remained difficult to address

using previous quantitative and qualitative measures (e.g., systematic observation). Given

that research focused on coaching prior to performance has received limited attention in

the sport psychology literature, a grounded theory approach allowed me to examine in

depth the themes and categories that emerged throughout the data collection and analysis

process regarding coaching behaviour prior to performance.

The primary analytic tool of grounded theorists is to inductively develop theory

from the participants’ responses through line-by-line coding, memo writing, and the

constant comparative method. In the present study, this involved the building of

knowledge through the simultaneous collection and line-by-line analysis of the coach

interview, observations, player interview, my own field notes, and video recall interview.

The progressive data collection and analysis allowed me to complete preliminary analysis

phase-by-phase and dyad-by-dyad, allowing the analysis of the data to drive the selection

of new participants (theoretical sampling), the questions that I asked, and the emerging

theory.

Focus of the Study

The focus of the thesis is to examine coach-athlete interactions immediately prior

to performance, with a specific interest on mental preparation. I designed the study to

examine coaching practices and coach-athlete interactions in general because I did not

want to eliminate any data by focusing exclusively on a specific topic area, such as mental

preparation. Consequently, in the data collection stage of the thesis, to capture all relevant

and inter-related concepts I collected data regarding all coach-athlete interactions and

coaching practices, not just those focused on mental preparation. I conducted the data

collection in this manner to minimise social desirability in the interviews. My purpose was

to engage the coaches and players in the study without having them focus on specific areas

of mental preparation. By using question such as “can you describe what you do in the

hour before a match?” I could gather more detailed situational and contextual

information and then extract the data relevant to my study. Consequently, the data analysis

will focus on extracting information relevant to the mental preparation of athletes.

Important information regarding tactical and physical preparation was not completely

ignored but used to guide and provide pertinent links to mental preparation strategies. The

links between mental preparation, coaching practices, tactics, and other data collected will

be discussed, however, the primary focus will be on mental preparation.

Conceptual framework of the study

The conceptual framework of the current study is based upon previous research

models such as the multidimensional model of leadership (Chelladurai, 1990), the

coaching model developed by Côté, Salmela, Baria et al. (1995) and the mediational

model of leadership developed by Smith and Smoll (1989). These three conceptual models

set the theoretical foundation for the study through the knowledge established on coaching

behaviour, the meditating factors affecting coach behaviour, the process involved in

coaching, and the styles of leadership that are related to satisfaction and performance.

Procedures

The data collection involved four phases (see Figure 3.1) including (a) an in-depth

interview with the coach, (b) observation and video recording of a practice session and of

the pre-performance period prior to a match, (c) an interview with a player, and (d) a

Verbal Cued Stimulated Recall Interview (VCSRI) with the coach. I initially invited

basketball coaches and players through Basketball Australia, the Australian Basketball

Association (ABA), and Basketball Victoria to participate in the study. The coaching

development officers or administrative personnel of the basketball associations forwarded

information packages to the coaches. If the coach(s) expressed interest in participating, a

form (see Appendix A1) in the package, was completed and returned. After receiving

notification from interested coaches, players’ in the coach’s team were forwarded

information packages (see Appendix A2) regarding the study. Once I had obtained a list of

interested coaches, I met with each coach and their team, to explain the purpose of the

research and answer questions. Players’ were then given the plain language statements)

and consent forms (Appendix B1-2) to read. Then they were asked to sign the consent

form if they were willing to participate.

I conducted the first interview focused on coaching intentions and objectives prior

to a match, with the coach 7-10 days before I observed/recorded the game. Three out of

four coaches chose to complete a phone interview. After the first interview, I attended a

training session where I observed the players and their interactions with the coach. I

attended the training session on the Thursday before the recorded game, as the training

session would be related to the game the team was playing on the weekend. I then attended

the pre-match preparations of each team. During the final hour or the hour and a half

before the start of a game, I recorded all interactions between coach and players with a

digital video camera, focusing specifically on interactions between the coach and the

potential player participant(s). The videotapes, my observations from both the training

session, and before the game were used to aid in the selection of participants for the Phase

3 interview. The video footage of the coaches’ interactions with their players prior to the

match and during the game were used to guide the selection of potential player participants

for Phase 3. Potential player participants were contacted after the game and asked to

participate in the study. All four of the players’ chose to complete the interview via phone.

I conducted the Phase 3 interviews via phone 1-3 days after the recorded game.

I used the preliminary analysis of phases 1-3, the field notes, and video footage

of the recorded game to aid in my selection of scenes for the VCSRI session. I selected

between 11 and 15 scenes for each coach. The scenes were edited using Studio 9 digital

video editing software. I conducted the Phase 4 interviews between 1 to 3 weeks after the

recorded game, depending on the coach’s availability. Each coach-player dyad completed

the four phases sequentially before research with the next dyad began. The four phases are

described in more detail in the following section.

Data Collection

Phase 1: Coach Interview

In the first phase, I interviewed the coach, focusing on their coaching practices

prior to competition. I conducted the interviews via phone or face-to-face, depending on

each coach’s preference. In the interviews, I asked the coaches to discuss the intentions

behind their specific coaching behaviours and practices prior to matches. The questions

(e.g., Can you tell me, in as much detail as possible, what you do in the lead up to a

match?) focused on coaches' practices and strategies during the specified time. I recorded

the interviews on an audio tape recorder. The interviews were between 45 and 75 minutes

In document Download (1MB) (Page 108-139)