Journal of Sports Sciences, June 2012; 30(10): 985–994

Parameterising expertise in coaching: Past, present and future

CHRISTINE NASH1, RUSSELL MARTINDALE1, DAVE COLLINS2, &

AMANDA MARTINDALE3
1
Edinburgh Napier University, SLSSS, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2UCLAN, School of Sport, Tourism and The Outdoors,
Preston, United Kingdom, and 3University of Edinburgh, SPEHS, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

(Accepted 30 March 2012)

Abstract
Research into expertise is increasing across a number of domains pertinent to sport. Whilst this increase is particularly
apparent in coaching, a key question is how to identify an expert coach? Accordingly, this paper draws upon existing studies
into expert coaches to address this issue; in particular, the criteria used to select expert coaches for research purposes and the
methods used in expert coach research. Based on these data, we contend that the elements of expertise are not fully reflected
within currently accepted criteria which, in turn, results in expert coaching research not necessarily identifying the
appropriate individuals to study. The paper concludes with recommendations for more rigorous criteria for selecting expert
coaches and highlights the associated implications for the future training and development of expert coaches.

Keywords: Expertise, sport coaching, meta-analysis, criteria

together with justified directions for future investiga-

Introduction
tion, debate and application.
Driven, perhaps, by the need to formalise, evaluate
and improve performance in coaching, the nature of
expertise in this crucial domain is an increasing focus The past – behaviour, process and knowledge
for researchers and practitioners alike. Unfortu-
nately, however, depending on the theoretical lens Douge and Hastie (1993) reviewed the coach
applied to examine the coaching process, clear, effectiveness literature between 1988 and 1992 to
concise and common guidelines seem elusive: provide an overview of the criteria used to define and
although the situation seems to be made more evaluate expertise in sport coaching at that time. The
complicated than necessary by the proliferation rather approaches that were used to describe coaching
than the integration of such perspectives (Abraham & expertise included:
Collins, in press). Be that as it may, a consequence of
this vagueness is that key contributory factors to coach 1) leadership style and coach/athlete perceptual
development, such as training initiatives, stakeholder congruence;
perceptions, evaluation/accreditation systems and 2) self analysis and reflection;
coach expectation lack the coherence of approach 3) effective application of systematic observation
essential for effective outcome (Pawson, Greenhailgh, instruments;
Harvey, & Walshe, 2005). 4) informant survey and content analysis
Accordingly, there are a number of reasons for 5) situation specific analysis.
pursuing a working (and workable) consensus on
expertise in coaching; these purposes underpin our The key focus of research at this time was defining
present paper. Firstly, and essentially as a backdrop expertise through a set of established coaching
to later discussion, we offer a brief historical overview behaviours. For example, important instructional
of past perspectives. We then report a meta-analysis strategies had been identified, such as, feedback,
of the literature, in an attempt to provide the most scold/praise ratio, questioning, instruction, mana-
accurate picture of current thinking. Finally, and as a ging the environment, and observing (Claxton, 1988;
result of this analysis, we offer a position statement Franks, Johnson, & Sinclair, 1988).

Correspondence: Christine Nash, Edinburgh Napier University, SLSSS, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.682079
986 C. Nash et al.

While coach behaviour remained the key focus for than through the coach-led orchestration of scientists
many of the areas of this research, investigations and other specialists. This position clearly contrasts
focusing on leadership style and more context-related with the ‘athlete centred, coach led’ philosophy
work (e.g. level, gender, sport, goals) started to which has more recently underpinned the application
highlight the domain specific nature of expert of science to sport, at least in the performance
behaviour. For example, research suggested that domain (Cassidy & Kidman, 2010).
effective coaching required the adoption of a leader- In conclusion, while much of the research until
ship approach (and associated behaviours) that 1993 was behaviourally orientated, the complexity of
matched the athletic environment by taking into expertise in coaching and some of the cognitive
account player, situation and coaching variables. In demands of it were starting to be recognised. In the
similar fashion, context-specific work within beha- 16 years since Douge and Hastie’s (1993) review,
vioural observation was highlighting the fact that only there has been a dramatic shift in the definition of
under certain situations were certain behaviours expertise within coaching. Abraham, Collins, and
associated with greater effectiveness (Gray, 1989; Martindale (2006), summarise this new emphasis by
Kuklinski, 1990; Lacy & Goldston, 1990). In short, saying that ‘‘examination of recent research in the
the apparent clarity offered by the original behavioural area of coaching practice and development reveals a
work was found to be illusionary. Behavioural obser- position that directly or indirectly infers that coach-
vation still had (and, we suggest, has) a great deal to ing is, fundamentally, a decision making process.’’
offer but only with significantly greater consideration of (p.549). The increasing recognition of this cognitive
the underpinnings, precursors and logic surrounding it basis to coaching expertise has been the research
(Abraham & Collins, 1998). As a further complication, focus of many other applied disciplines for years. For
the multilevel agendas which characterise work in the example, Nash and Collins, (2006) provide a
human environment (cf. Martindale & Collins, 2005) summary of the key themes that emerge consistently
meant that behaviour was best associated with a far across disciplines such as chess, music, clinical
more sophisticated decision making process than the diagnosis, and sport. They highlight that the nature
original work had suggested. of expertise includes the following:
In response to the critique of behavioural ap-
proaches, other coaching research methodologies 1) Expertise is domain specific and developed
emerged. For example, Jones, Housner, and Korn- over a prolonged period of time
span (1995) focused on the differences in planning 2) Experts recognise patterns faster than novices
and knowledge between expert and novice coaches. 3) Expert knowledge is structured to allow easier
Furthermore, Rutt Leas and Chi (1993) found that recall
experts plan in a much more focused way and have 4) Experts sort problems into categories accord-
deeper, more complex reasoning underlying the use ing to features of their solutions
of various coaching tools to achieve their aims (cf. 5) Experts initially are slower to solve problems
our point on sophistication earlier). In other words, than non experts but are faster overall
research had started to move away from what expert 6) Experts are more flexible and are more able to
coaches did and how they should do it, towards an adapt to situations
exploration of why they do it in that particular way. 7) Experts develop routines to allow processing
Finally, and again from the ‘essential knowledge’ capacity to be focused on ongoing environ-
perspective, the view of coach as ‘scientific expert’ is ments
also apparent in parallel to, or perhaps even 8) Experts take deeper meanings from cues than
preceding these approaches, although notably and novices
interestingly more apparent in some sports than
others (Seely Brown & Duguid, 2001). The classic The knowledge on which such decisions are to be
approach of James ‘Doc’ Counsilman in swimming is based is an important but embedded consideration
an example (e.g. Counsilman & Counsilman, 1991), within this approach. In order to do this effectively,
with that of Forbes Carlile (e.g. Carlile, 1955) the coach must utilise many different types of
providing another. In the UK, the approach taken knowledge to solve problems and ultimately make
by Athletics National Coach Frank Dick was also decisions (Gilbert & Jackson, 2004). Unfortunately,
based on the coach as scientist; consider, for however, research into expertise in coaching, and
example, the Senior Coach syllabus and support more specifically the method of identification of the
material generated by the British Amateur Athletic expert coach, appears to have fallen behind other
Board in 1986 (Johnson, 1986). Crucially, however, domains mentioned above. Accordingly, in this
all these coaches saw the science as essential to their paper we are attempting to answer the question
coaching function, but also as knowledge required by posed by Abraham et al. (2006) as what constitutes
and to be applied by the coach him/herself, rather an expert coach.
 Expertise in coaching 987

fully. A search carried out in the database Sport-

The present – setting conditions and surveying
Discus using the same broad initial search terms
the literature
coach* and expert* produced 243 hits in French,
Reflecting these varied concerns, the broad purpose German, Russian, Italian and Spanish but also did
of this study was to examine research into expertise not allow a search to be conducted in Chinese. Peer
in sport coaching, building from Douge and Hastie’s reviewed journals were considered to be an indicator
(1993) review of coaching effectiveness to ascertain of quality as well as setting the research agenda in a
whether the knowledge base had appreciably in- specific area such as sport coaching (Harvey, 2002).
creased. The dates for this study were chosen to follow on
from Douge and Hastie’s (1993) analysis of coaching
effectiveness and expertise. Criteria 4, related to
Analysing the current literature – methods
sport coaching, was included as many initial hits
The research design was based on a similar study in involved transport or were related to sport in a more
coaching science research carried out by Gilbert and general sense, rather than specifically relating to the
Trudel (2004; See Gilbert & Trudel, 2004 for more coaching of sport. Using these criteria the list was
details). It aimed to answer the following research narrowed down to 554 articles and these abstracts
questions: were accessed by the research team, similar to the
Gilbert and Trudel (2004) study. From these
1. How many research studies have been pub- inclusion criteria, 50 research papers that identified
lished in coaching expertise? expert coaches were read in full, to gather the data
2. How was expertise defined? necessary to answer the six research questions.
3. What aspects of expertise have been studied? Source and date published information are presented
4. What methods have been used? in Table II.
5. What sports and sporting contexts have been Based on these data, it appeared that the majority
utilised? of the research papers relating to sport coaching and
6. Is research actually identifying the expert
coach?
Table II. Journal, date and no. of articles selected for study.
An exhaustive search using databases was con-
Number
ducted for research in coaching expertise using the
Journal Title of articles Date Range
Boolean terms coach* and expert*. These were
searched for anywhere in the article. The number of Applied Research in Coaching & 4 1995–2007
hits returned from each database is shown in Table I. Athletics Annual
This initial database search was followed by Avante 1 1995
British Educational Research 1 2003
individual searches in these databases using these Journal
criteria: Coaching & Sports Science Journal 1 1997
International Journal of Sport 4 1998–2006
1. Written in English language Psychology
1
2. Peer reviewed journals International Journal of Sport 2 2006–2009
Science & Coaching
3. Dates between 1993–2009 International Sport Journal 1 2003
4. Related to sport coaching Journal of Applied Sport 3 2001–2007
Psychology
Criteria 1, articles written in the English language, Journal of Sport Behavior 1 2008
allowed researchers to read and analyse the articles Journal of Sport & Exercise 2 1995
Psychology
Journal of Sports Sciences 5 2005–2009
Table I. Number of hits yielded by different search engines. Journal of Sports Science & 1 2005
Medicine
No of returns for Journal of Teaching in PE 1 2006
Database Coach* & Expert* Perceptual & Motor Skills 1 2002
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 1 2009
ERIC 11 Reflective Practice 1 2004
Expanded Academic ASAP (Gale) 21109 Research Quarterly for Exercise & 4 1998–2007
Medline 121 Sport
PsychInfo 67 SOSOL 1 2002
ScienceDirect (Elsevier) 767 Sport, Education & Society 2 2002–2003
SportDiscus 134 The Sport Psychologist 13 1995–2008
Web of Knowledge 326 Total 50 1995–2009
Total: 22535 1
The first edition of this journal was 2006.
988 C. Nash et al.

expertise were written after the year 2000, rather between perceived levels of coaching but there was
than the earlier period from 1993–1999. During the no consistency amongst the selection of coaching
period of 1993–1999 only 13 research articles were levels. There was also no accepted practice of
published whereas from 2000–2009, 37 were de- utilising the highest level available in the particular
tected. This considerable increase could signify a sport or in the country. Given that, within the UK,
shift in research interest around the turn of the there are a number of different coaching awards that
century, as a result of growing interest in sport represent the highest level of qualification/accredita-
coaching as an academic subject. tion possible, it may be advisable that the highest
The aspect of reliability was addressed by the level of coaching qualification available should be
researchers in terms of article inclusion, coder used in conjunction with other criteria.
training and article coding similar to the Gilbert The development of participants along with the
and Trudel (2004) study. As there were only 50 level of coaching practice also seemed an arbitrary
articles included within this study, all were checked measure – some specified national performers or
by the two main researchers and only those that were international performers while others named compe-
agreed by both were included. titions, for example, Olympic athletes. The level of
representation would also have a clearly confounding
cultural dimension, as in some countries it is easier
Results & discussion
to become an Olympic athlete than others, similarly
Descriptive statistics are presented for the research with some more popular sports having a larger
questions 2–6 posed earlier and the results are participant pool. The level of coaching practice
discussed in the context of how the empirical definitions were on comparable lines varying from
research has contributed to the theoretical landscape coaches who were coaching at a representative level
of coaching expertise. to those who were coaching performers towards
World Championships or Olympics. Both of these
criteria, the development of participants along with
How was expertise defined?
level of coaching practice, allow for the selection of
A number of varying definitions emerged from these coaches with very differing backgrounds. In a few
papers relating to the criteria utilised to identify studies, there was also mention of expert coaches
coaching expertise, which suggests a lack of clarity being mentors and involved in coach education.
among researchers. From the 50 papers included in The second category, that of selection by another,
the study, there were 27 differing explanations or tended to be represented in studies carried out in the
criteria to identify the expert coaches used in the earlier phase of the years under review. The back-
studies. These fell into four distinct categories: ground and rationale for the ‘other’ doing the
selection was not explained but generally these were
1. Criteria consisting of a composite of coaching other coaches at a similar level, sport administrators
experience, level of coaching qualifications, (often in the USA), or a collective decision from
development of participants and level of sporting organisations. More recently, some studies
coaching. had utilised an amalgamation of categories one and
2. Selection by others (e.g. peers, administrators, two consisting of a composite of coaching experi-
National Governing Bodies (NGBs)). ence, level of coaching qualifications, development
3. Position held (e.g. Olympic coaches). of participants and level of coaching along with a
4. No explanation given. recommendation from other sources, such as sport-
ing organisations. This adds more criteria for
The first category was the most popular, with a coaches to fulfil the designation or otherwise of
number using or adapting the criteria used by Côté, expert status; however whether these additions
Salmela, Trudel, Baria, and Russell, (1995) in their actually enable genuine expertise to be identified is
work examining expert gymnastics coaches in 1995. questionable.
There were, however a number of differences noted; The third category, that of position held, was used
for example, it is commonly accepted (although in some studies, for example National or Head
more recently challenged) that expertise in any University coaches. There were no other criteria
domain takes a minimum of ten years to develop used to distinguish these coaches other than their
(Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993). In these position, unlike some studies utilising category one
selected expertise studies within sport coaching, definitions where the level of coaching practice was
minimum years of accumulated coaching experience often a similar position to the third category. This
ranged from five to ten years. suggests that category one is more robust in
The level of coaching qualification also differed: identifying expertise in coaching than category three.
much of this could be attributed to cultural variations Category four clearly offered the least compelling
 Expertise in coaching 989

argument with no explanation or definition of studies purportedly undertaken in this area actually
coaching expertise. However, whether there is any relate to known elements of expertise; perhaps
consensus surrounding the definition of an expert because these aspects are difficult to explore unlike
coach arising in the years between 1993–2009 is some of the more popularly researched areas such as
open to debate. development, behaviour and skills. This would lead
us to ask whether aspects of expertise necessary to
sport coaching have been identified or investigated
What aspects of expertise have been studied?
thoroughly.
There were many different aspects of expertise
identified by the authors as the focus or purpose of
What methods have been used?
their studies (See Figure 1). By far the most
researched aspect of expertise (30%) was the devel- There was a considerable range of methods used (see
opmental process followed by expert coaches on the Figure 2) in these expert coach studies. The most
route to expertise. These aspects of coach develop- popular (48%) was by interview, although studies did
ment included all types of coach learning, formal mention a number of different interview types, for
coach education courses, informal networking or example, in-depth open-ended interviews, semi-
other methods of development such as professional structured interviews and structured retrospective
development. In other words, researchers want to quantitative interviews.
discover how expertise is developed in sport coaches. The mixed method approach was the next most
Although coaching behaviour has been deter- popular, although only representing 14% of the
mined to be the ‘hallmark’ of an expert coach, range of methods in these studies. Mixed methods
namely demonstrating how they actually put their often included observation, usually of the coach
knowledge and experience into practice, many during training sessions, questionnaire and some
problems exist when determining expertise status. form of interview. Mixed methods researchers have
For example, Gilbert and Trudel (2004) established repeatedly described the benefits of mixing quanti-
that there were few coaches whose practice was tative and qualitative designs as enhanced triangula-
worthy of simulation and, according to the elements tion, a more robust development of theory, and the
of expertise identified earlier in this paper, observed potential to more comprehensively understand the
behaviour is neither listed nor does it reflect the research situation (Borkan, 2004; Creswell, Fetters,
cognitive processes necessary for expertise. Looking & Ivankova, 2004; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
at Figure 1, those studies which could be clearly Although mixed method designs have been used in
related to themes of expertise (as referred to earlier) many domains, for example, nursing, (Sandelowski,
were those investigating decision making (x3), 2000), its adoption in sports research is less obvious
routine (x1), adaptation (x1), cognitive processes and more recent. The only other method utilised
(x1), self determination (x1), knowledge (x2) and extensively was the survey method, with 10% of the
visual search (x2). Notably, this represents only 22% total. Like earlier studies looking at coaches’
of all studies where expertise in coaching is defined. behaviours, observation methods, most commonly
In other words, only approximately one in five of the utilising video analysis, were still a popular method

Figure 1. Focus of research studies.

990 C. Nash et al.

Figure 2. Methods used in research studies.

of identifying and studying expertise in sport

coaches. As stated earlier, however, the collection
of quantitative data on coaches’ behaviours has
limited significance if the situational context is not
considered; for example objectives, season period
and sport culture. In order to better understand
coaches’ interventions, it is imperative to study the
rationale underlying coaches’ decision-making in
addition to analysis of the coaches’ intervention
based on systematic observation (Trudel, Haughian,
& Gilbert, 1996; Jones et al., 1995). This means not
just observing what coaches do, but why they do it
(cf. Martindale & Collins, 2010). For these reasons,
it is suggested that expertise research should attempt
to investigate the cognitive functioning of sport
coaches, possibly using mixed methods.
Figure 3. Range of sports in expert studies.

What sports and sporting contexts have been utilised?

There were a range of sports used in these studies as
highlighted in Figure 3. The largest number of
studies was carried out in ‘mixed’ studies, those that
included a range of sports, whether just two or a
larger number. The majority of studies were carried
out in individual sports, judo, archery, gymnastics,
swimming and rowing. There were also specific
studies in soccer, basketball and volleyball as well as
those which involved ‘team sports’. It could be
argued that expertise is easier to identify in athletes
within individual sports but then that should not
Figure 4. Countries of expert coach research.
influence the expert coach in individual or team
sports. It may be that the role of the coach is more
complex and dynamic within team sports, especially
in competitive environments, so in the early stages of using Canadian coaches (see Figure 4). This may be
expert research coaches of individual sports were a result of the selection criteria for the studies; that of
selected. being written in the English language so the English
Two thirds (67%) of the studies using expert speaking countries are well represented. It may also
coaches were carried out in North America, with 20 be that many of these countries are recognised for,
out of the 59 studies based in Canada, generally not only sport coaching, but research into sport
 Expertise in coaching 991

coaching. It may well be the case that a substantial to the different types of knowledge experts possess,
body of research exists in languages other than Klein and Militello also describe what experts can do
English but that is beyond the scope of this analysis. with this knowledge: for example, run mental
simulations (to diagnose/explain/form expectancies),
spot anomalies and detect problems, find leverage
Is research actually identifying the expert coach?
points (perform workarounds), manage uncertainty,
A number of problems have been identified in the plan and re-plan, assess complex situations, manage
study of expertise. These include difficulties distin- attention, and take their own strengths and limita-
guishing between expertise, experience and effec- tions into account.
tiveness, thereby identifying the relevant criteria to Interestingly, however, research also acknowledges
define expertise, as shown earlier. As expertise can that our understanding of how this cognitive knowl-
often be presented as largely reliant on tacit, implicit edge is best developed and applied is rather lacking,
or unconscious knowledge there can be varying especially with regard to the making of decisions
names given to expert cognition in both differing against such knowledge (Yates & Tschirhart, 2006).
and similar fields, for example, ‘skilled intuition’ or Such limitations notwithstanding (or perhaps, not
‘intuitive expertise’ (Dodds, 1994; Kahneman & completely acknowledged?), the implications of this
Klein, 2009; Kreber & Cranton, 2000; Sternberg, understanding of expertise led researchers to recog-
2003). This can lead to ambiguity and confusion nise that experts have large amounts of declarative
when attempting to categorise for use in sport and procedural knowledge related to a number of key
coaching research. areas, for example, sport-specific and pedagogy. In
As coaches develop, the pathway appears to fact, Phillips et al. (2004) suggest that the primary
become less well-defined, reflecting changes to the distinction that separates experts from novices
coaches’ knowledge base and also their ability to appears to be their domain-specific knowledge.
make use of the appropriate information at the Indeed, Abraham et al. (2006) provide a useful
appropriate time; for example in decision making schematic representing the likely knowledge bases
and problem-solving (Guest, Regehr, & Tiberius, needed to enable coaches to make informed deci-
2001). Yet none of these skills are included in any sions in practice. However, experts also have the
definition of coaching expertise and few research ability to make decisions and problem solve using
articles. So are these studies merely examining the this knowledge from a breadth first approach
practices of elite (in this context high performance- (Abraham & Collins, 1998), which means knowledge
associated and/or highly time serving rather than high alone is not useful but rather, that coaches must gain
performing) coaches as perhaps the hierarchical experience in applying this knowledge within their
gaining of both coaching awards and experience varied coaching environments (Nash & Collins,
appears to suggest? Current coach education courses 2006). While many coaches appear to work at a tacit
tend to present coaches with sport-specific content, level, it would appear that the ‘‘the currency of
in a hierarchical process. Coaches are then evaluated transfer is the base of declarative knowledge and the
on a number of pre-determined competences which linking and interacting of information at the base
are not allied with the characteristics of expertise level in order to make appropriate decisions’’ (Nash
(Department of Culture, Media & Sport [DCMS], & Collins, 2006, p.473). This decision making
2007; Gilbert & Trudel, 1999; Griffey, 1994). If process is somewhat complex in nature and occurs
coaches are considered to be expert, then the at a number of different levels, such as session,
methods by which they achieved this standing need intervention and programme level (Martindale &
to be scrutinised, evaluated and disseminated to Collins, 2005), where different time pressures and
coach education programmes for their information. decision making strategies may exist. As suggested
This may also help establish a number of criteria of earlier, we still need to know more about this aspect
expertise, specifically relating to coaches and their and how it may be optimally developed and applied.
practices. Due to the cognitive nature of coaching expertise,
This supports the perspective that experts seem to it would appear unlikely that an expert performer
‘represent’ problems at a deeper level than novices who has changed career into coaching will auto-
and, as such, can be discriminated from others by matically be an ‘expert’ coach (Nash & Collins,
describing what they know that others do not and 2006). While such a playing experience will poten-
what they can do that others cannot (Phillips, Klein, tially be very useful in providing relevant knowledge
& Sieck, 2004). Klein and Militello (2005) suggest and experience, only with good reflective and critical
several additional categories of knowledge related to skills will this knowledge be applied effectively as a
expertise alongside this declarative and procedural coach. In fact, recent work has shown that many
knowledge: perceptual skills, mental models, sense of coaches consider themselves reflective without any
typicality and associations, and routines. In addition understanding of critical reflective criteria; in short,
992 C. Nash et al.

what are the criteria against which they reflect to So what do we know that may inform these next
evaluate and improve the quality of practice (Abra- steps?
ham & Collins, in press; Strean, Senecal, Howlett, & Expert coaches often function at a certain level of
Burgess, 1997). As such, it is important to be wary of automaticity, developed through situated learning,
definitions of expert coaches based solely on playing another element of expertise brought about by
experience or performance. Furthermore, Nash and reflection on and in the practice and use of
Collins (2006) highlight that not all expert coaches procedures for certain elements to allow more
make the best coach educators, because some of working memory to be utilised for solving problems
them work on a completely tacit level. (Kidman, 2005; Nowotny, 2000; Zeitz, 1997). This
ability could be attributed to the base of declarative
knowledge and the linking and interacting of
The future – discussion and future directions
information at this base level in order to make
As the previous sections have shown, the picture on appropriate decisions during planning, practice and
expertise in coaching is far from clear. Even competition (Nash & Collins, 2006). Notably,
apparently concise findings may be questioned, often however, this does not mean that exploring coach
because the data are based on participants selected knowledge bases (through applied cognitive task
against questionable criteria. In short, have we been analysis (ACTA) for example, - Militello &
measuring what we should be? Accordingly, if our Hutton, 1998) and examining decision making
future efforts are to bear real fruit, we need to (Abraham & Collins, 2012) is obviated. Indeed,
establish some effective criteria and base character- the way in which this tacit automaticity is devel-
istics of expertise from which participant selection, oped and ongoingly refined may well be another
study focus and eventual interventions may evolve. key feature of expertise.

Table III. Proposed criteria for identifying and operationalising expertise in coaches.

Criteria Essential/Possible How exhibited in coach

Utilises a large declarative Essential Knowledge could be evidenced by formal academic

knowledge base to the qualifications or by in-role examination.
application of problem solving Application critical thinking skills (decision-making,
and decision making, in line problem-solving) generating effective and justifiable
with the structure solutions is also crucial; evidenced through a combination of
recommended by Abraham et behavioural observation and viva style interview.
al. (2006).

Utilises perceptual skills, mental Essential Use of ACTA techniques (e.g., a ‘knowledge audit’; Militello &
models, sense of typicality and Hutton, 1998) to survey ‘what they know’ and ‘what they
associations, and routines can do’ with that knowledge.
(Klein & Militello, 2005).
Demonstrates the ability to work Essential Consideration of working practice in process and outcome;
independently, and capable of changes/innovations reported/ observed.
producing novel, innovative Peer recommendation.
solutions.
Demonstrates effective reflection Essential Peer recommendation.
skills and lifelong learning Development record and involvement when in development
attitude to their development settings.
(e.g., framing, on-the-spot Demonstrates continual striving for development of
experimentation, and professional expertise.
hypothesis testing, Schön,
1987).
Takes their own strengths and
limitations into account.
Manages complex planning Essential Can run mental simulations, spot anomalies and detect
process. problems, find leverage points, manage uncertainty, plan
and re-plan, assess complex situations, manage attention
and ‘anticipate’ needs (Klein & Militello, 2005).
Track record of developing athletes Possible Coaching portfolios (could include statement of coaching
from one stage to another (e.g. (although coaches will become philosophy, perfomer profiles, reflective evaluations, goals,
from development athlete to increasingly specialised at programme & session plans).
world class standards). certain stages of the
performance pathway)
 Expertise in coaching 993

In fact, the quest for knowledge may well be a coaching experience. However, if their actual prac-
criterion in itself. Expert coaches have been deter- tice has not evolved during this time, can they be
mined to display an ongoing quest for personal designated as experts? Also, the definition of an
growth and knowledge acquisition (Bloom & Salme- expert coach may change according to the country
la, 2000). This could be operationalised as attending and culture of the coach, for example in North
coaching seminars, continuing professional develop- America there appears to be a cultural bias towards
ment (CPD) events and interacting with peers the importance of teaching within coaching research.
through ‘communities of practice’ (Schön, 1987). This may be related to importance of their coach
Few definitions of expertise in sport coaching have education programmes or indeed the cultural im-
acknowledged this aspect, which could also be easier portance of sport.
to identify than others. Unfortunately, however, this In other words, the definition of expertise and
acquisitive trait may not be a universal characteristic, subsequently the selection of expert coaches for
which would limit its use as a criterion for expertise. research purposes would do well to take into account
Recent work by Collins, Abraham and Collins (in the cognitive expertise of the coach, and perhaps
review) has applied work on epistemological beliefs their ability to explain the processes and knowledge
to high level coaches, suggesting the existence of structure behind this expertise. As such, Table III
such ‘information-hungry’ coaches but also some suggests criteria recommended for the selection of
who seem inured to learning from others, termed expert coaches.
respectively ‘wolves and vampires’. This distinction, This clearly raises issues as to the criteria that
and indeed the contention that the open and have been used to identify the expert coach in the
enthusiastic pursuit of new knowledge is not an past but also suggests a way forward. The criteria
automatic characteristic of expertise, both await proposed are less rigid than those used in previous
further investigation. However, the caveat should research articles albeit possibly more difficult to
be noted and addressed by future investigation. identify. However, as the task of coaching has been
Nevertheless, ‘off-line thinking’ about their coach- identified as intricate and cognitively based, it
ing would seem to be a sensible although not sole implies that the identification and subsequent
criterion to apply in distinguishing expertise. His- research into the activities of expert coaches should
torically coaches have been viewed as ‘‘merely reflect this complexity. The proposed criteria bring
technicians engaged in the transfer of knowledge’’ additional implications for the training and devel-
in a process that can be viewed as unproblematic as opment of coach expertise as to clearly delineate
long as the coach follows an appropriate systematic coaching expertise will assist the quest of those
‘model’ (Macdonald & Tinning, 1995, p.98). More striving to develop it. We hope that these sugges-
recently, within coaching research there appears to tions offer a basis for future discussion and
be recognition that coaching is a complex and investigations.
dynamic process, indicating a change from Douge
and Hastie’s findings (1993). The constant change
and complexity of the coaching role requires to be References
more thoughtfully presented to coaches if more are
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending
to aspire to expertise in coaching. Certainly, sharing
research in coach development. Quest, 50, 59–79.
of the whys as well as the whats appears to be a Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2012). Taking the next step: Ways
crucial feature of learning from others’ expertise forward for coaching science. Quest, 63, 366–384.
(Collins, Seely Brown, & Holum, 1991). Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching
Research has demonstrated that a considerable schematic: Validation through expert coach consensus. Journal
number of coaches meet these ‘expert’ criteria. of Sports Sciences, 24(6), 549–564.
Bloom, G.A., & Salmela, J.H. (2000). Personal characteristics of
However it is also clear that there are different levels expert team sport coaches. Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 6(2), 56–
of functioning within that ‘expertise level’. Current 76.
criteria appear to infer a certain inevitability about Borkan, J. (2004). Mixed methods studies: A foundation for
the development of expertise in coaching whereas the primary care research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 4–6.
evidence suggests that expertise requires a long term Carlile, F. (1955). The athlete and adaptation to stress. Journal of
Physical Education, February–March.
approach and is only attained by a few. Accordingly, Cassidy, T., & Kidman, L. (2010). Initiating a national coaching
although this research has encountered coaching curriculum: A paradigmatic shift? Physical Education & Sport
expertise and expert coaches, we strongly feel that Pedagogy, 15(3), 307–322.
the current accepted criteria for expertise in coaching Claxton, D.B. (1988). A systematic observation of successful and
need review. Coach education, as it currently exists less successful high school tennis coaches. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 7, 302–310.
in the UK, does not clearly delineate the expert from Collins, A., Seely Brown, J., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive
the experienced. Many coaches hold the highest apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator,
NGB award and have accumulated over ten years Winter, 1–18.
994 C. Nash et al.

Côté, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2005). Professional judgment and
The coaching model: A grounded assessment of expert decision making: The role of intention for impact. The Sport
gymnastic coaches’ knowledge. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychologist, 19(3), 303–317.
Psychology, 2, 1–17. Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2010). But why does what works
Counsilman, B.E., & Counsilman, J.E. (1991). The residual work? A response to Fifer, Henschen, Gould, and Ravizza,
effects of training. Journal of Swimming Research, 7, 5–12. 2008. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 113–116.
Creswell, J.W., Fetters, M.D., & Ivankova, N.V. (2004). Design- McDonald, D., & Tinning, R. (1995). Physical education teacher
ing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family education and the trend to proletarianisation: A case study.
Medicine, 2, 7–12. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 98–118.
Department of Culture, Media & Sport. (2007). Our promise for Militello, L.G., & Hutton, R.J.B. (1998). Applied cognitive task
2012. London: Author. analysis (ACTA): A practitioner’s toolkit for understanding
Dodds, P. (1994). Cognitive and behavioral components of cognitive task demands. Ergonomics, 41(11), 1618–1641.
expertise in teaching physical education. Quest, 46, 153–163. Nash, C., & Collins, D. (2006). Tacit knowledge in expert
Douge, B., & Hastie, P. (1993). Coach effectiveness. Sport Science coaching: Science or art? Quest, 58, 464–476.
Review, 2(2), 14–29. Nowotny, H. (2000). Transgressive competence - The narrative of
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The expertise. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(1), 5–21.
role of deliberate practice in the development of expertise. Pawson, R., Greenhailgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005).
Psychology Review, 100, 363–406. Realist review – A new method of systematic review designed
Franks, I.M., Johnson, R.B., & Sinclair, G.D. (1988). The for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services
development of a computerized coaching analysis system for Research & Policy, 10(1), 21–34.
recording behavior in sporting environments. Journal of Phillips, J.K., Klein, G., & Sieck. W.R. (2004). Expertise in
Teaching in Physical Education, 8(1), 23–32. judgment and decision making: A case for training intuitive
Gilbert, W. D., & Jackson, C.G.R. (2004). In search of an effective decision skills. In D.K. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.),
coaching style. Olympic Coach, 16(4), 16–17. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. New
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (1999). An evaluation strategy for coach York: Wiley-Blackwell, 297–315.
education programs. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(2), 234–250. Pullo, F.M. (1992). A profile of NCAA Division I strength and
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science conditioning coaches. The Journal of Applied Sport Science
research published from 1970-2001. Research Quarterly for Research, 6(1), 55–62.
Exercise & Sport, 75, 388–399. Rutt Leas, R., & Chi, M.T.H. (1993). Analyzing diagnostic
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded expertise of competitive swimming coaches. In J.L. Starkes & F.
theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Allard (Eds.), Cognitive issues in motor expertise (75–94).
Gray, S.W. (1989). Behavioral coaching in the development of Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
open, collective skills of rugby. Journal of Applied Research in Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative
Coaching and Athletics, 4(2), 75–87. sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-
Griffey, D.C. (1994). Formative assessments in team sports in a methods studies. Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 246–255.
tactical approach context. Journal of Physical Education, Recrea- Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San
tion, and Dance, 69(1), 46–51. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guest, C.B., Regehr, G., & Tiberius, R.G. (2001). The life long Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organisa-
challenge of expertise. Medical Education, 35, 78–81. tion: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2),
Harvey, L. (2002). Evaluation for what? Teaching in Higher 198–213.
Education, 7(3), 245–264. Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthe-
Johnson, C.C. (1986). Senior coach: Coaching theory manual (2nd sized. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
ed.). Leatherhead, England: British Amateur Athletic Board. Strean, W.B., Senecal, S., Howlett, G., & Burgess, J.M. (1997).
Jones, D.F., Housner, L.D., & Kornspan, A.S. (1995). A Xs and 0s and what the coach knows: Improving team strategy
comparative analysis of expert and novice basketball coaches’ through critical thinking. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 243–256.
practice planning. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Trudel, P., Haughian, L.P., & Gilbert, W.D. (1996). L’utilisation
Annual, March, 201–227. de la technique de rappel stimulé pour mieux compredre le
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive preocessus d’intervention de l’éntraineur en sport. [Using
expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), stimulated recall to understand the intervention processes of
515–526. sports coaches] Revue des Sciences de l’Education, 22(3), 503–
Kidman, L. (2005). Athlete-centred coaching. Christchurch, New 522.
Zealand: Innovative Press. Yates, J.F., & Tschirhart, M.D. (2006). Decision-making ex-
Klein, G., & Militello, L. (2005). The knowledge audit as a pertise. In K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, & R.R.
method for cognitive task analysis. In H. Montgomery, R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert
Lipshitz, & B. Brehmer (Eds.), How professionals make decisions. performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 421–
London: LEA. 438.
Kreber, C., & Cranton, P.A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of Zeitz, C.M. (1997). Some concrete advantages of abstraction:
teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476–495. How experts’ representations facilitate reasoning. In P.J.
Kuklinski, B. (1990). Sport leadership - an overview. New Zealand Feltovich, K.M. Ford, & R.R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in
Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 23(3), 15– context: Human and machine (43–65). Cambridge: AAAI Press/
18. The MIT Press.
Lacy, A.C., & Goldston, P.D. (1990). Behavior analysis of male
and female coaches in high school girls’ basketball. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 13(1), 29–39.
Copyright of Journal of Sports Sciences is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.