Morality in sport: The coach's perspective

Introduction

The study of the relationship between morality and sport has a long trajectory and has increased in recent years. Scholars in cognitive moral psychology have mainly approached this relationship from two research perspectives that highlight the importance of cognition in both understanding and complying with the rules.^1,2

The first perspective, the game reasoning model, ³ studied athletes’ moral development through sport participation by considering three sources of influence (i.e. personal competencies, social contextual factors and ego processes) within the four components of moral action defined by Rest ⁴ (i.e. moral interpretation, moral judgement, moral intention and moral behaviour). A major research strategy used within the context of this model was to compare sport participants’ and non-sport participants’ responses to different moral related variables (e.g. aggression). It was concluded that sports context elicited a temporary moral adaptation in which moral reasoning was less mature (e.g. more egocentric and individualistic) as compared with daily life moral reasoning, a phenomenon referred to as ‘bracketed morality’. ⁵ Bracketed morality has been described as a broader and encompassing form of moral action promoted and allowed in the sport environment, in which the existence of artificial rules and the need to ‘win at all costs’ co-exist. ⁶ The evidence generated under the umbrella of this model was highly regarded within the field of psychosocial sport research, ⁷ as well as highly criticised by scholars in the field of sport philosophy. For example, Jones ⁸ and Jones and McNamee ⁹ pointed out that although the game reasoning model moved from the original cognitive model, which proposed that moral maturity can be assessed by examining an individual's moral judgement, it remained loyal to the impartial and universal application of moral rules that account for mature moral action. This represents a limitation if considered that moral decisions in sport have to be made within a constrained time and therefore require not only a cognitive analysis but also the balance of feelings, emotions and enacted behaviours, all elements not considered in the model coined by Shields and Bredemeier. ³

The second research perspective attempted to understand moral action and focused on the assessment of enacted and overt moral behaviour. ¹⁰ This research line, mainly led by Kavussanu and colleagues, used two theoretical venues: Rest's neo-Kohlbergian approach ⁴ and Bandura's^11,12 social learning theory. The two major research strategies used were the presentation of real-world sport scenarios to athletes who reported the likelihood of engagement on those specific acts and the administration of surveys. Evidence resulting from this research approach allowed the identification of the role of different mediating variables, such as goal orientation (i.e. the tendency to use self- or other-referenced criteria to evaluate success, ¹³ perceived motivational climate and sex).

Although the bulk of research conducted under these two theoretical frames has provided valuable evidence, the fact that they are both embedded and embodied within a positivist tradition represents a major limitation: the researcher's assessments respond to available standards that are not necessarily shared by the participants studied. ¹⁴ In addition, the gap between the researcher's and the participants' perspectives may create a tension between descriptive (e.g. what is actually enacted) and normative approaches (e.g. what should be done) that hides participants' perspectives of morality. ¹⁵

Why is it important to consider participants', rather than the researchers', perspectives of morality? From a relational-being perspective, ¹⁶ human action is a co-active confluence process in which socio-cultural and historical understandings are co-created, negotiated, shared and reflected in people's perspectives and actions. ¹⁷ In this vein, the consideration of moral values such as justice and respect is crucial, because they have an impact on others' rights and welfare, and may facilitate social relationships. ¹⁸ Specifically concerning sports, a recent review suggested that the coach can be a major contributor to the negotiation of moral values held in the sport environment. ¹⁹ At the same time, the athletes are receptive to the moral frame provided by the coach. ²⁰ Thus, athletes' moral development may be fostered if the sport environment is structured by a competent adult who has that purpose in mind.^7,21 Following this line of thought, it is not the sport to blame for the frequently publicised moral scandals such as using illegal performance-enhancing drugs, but the subjects who are part of it. ⁹ Therefore, if we aim at comprehending the nature of the reasons underlying moral decisions in sport, we need first to understand participants' perspectives of morality.

If we accept that coaches play a crucial role in setting the moral tone within a team, a second issue to be addressed is what coaches mean by morality. To our knowledge, only two studies, both of which have used qualitative methods, aimed at exploring coaches' perspectives of morality. In the first study, Rudd and Mondello ²² sought to examine how 12 head coaches from Division I (the highest level of American intercollegiate athletics), representing a variety of individual and team sports not specified in the manuscript, defined character. The responses were grouped into two types of character: moral character (i.e. doing what is right, honest and fair; as well as the ability to distinguishing between right and wrong) and social character (i.e. hard work, sacrifice and relationships with teammates and others). The authors noted that definitions coaches provided were too general, lacked specificity and frequently conflated the two types of character. For example, some coaches were unable to identify either values or traits entailed in their definitions. The authors suggested that this trend in the responses might indicate that coaches found it hard to articulate subtle differences concerning morality.

In the second study, Romand and Pantaléon ²³ went further and aimed at both attaining a deeper understanding of coaches' conceptions and practices towards the display of moral character (e.g. values they tried to teach to their players, their own moral attitudes and behaviours and their position towards athletes' moral behaviours) and determining whether coaches' talks in practice and in competition were contradictory concerning moral character. Sixteen coaches of adolescent rugby teams were interviewed. Coaches referred to values and rules they wanted to impart such as combativeness and involvement in the sport (e.g. physical challenge, violent behaviour); rule-abidance and respect for others (e.g. to the referee and the opponents); cohesion and solidarity in the team and competitive spirit (i.e. caring about success). Also, coaches acknowledged the existence of rules and norms that occurred during practice as well as rules and norms that occurred during competition. The former fell into three categories: (a) prosocial norms (e.g. punctuality); (b) respect (e.g. for others, for the coach) and (c) specific rules related to the game, whereas the latter had to do with respect (or disrespect, or neglect) for the others' rights and the games rules. Interviewed coaches mentioned as well that due to the demands of competition, they sometimes found it difficult to balance the teaching of values with the need to win. As such, although coaches emphasised rule abidance during practice, they were prone to accept less exemplary behaviours from their athletes during competition. For example, coaches explained that during a game they might take a player out of the field to avoid jeopardising the effectiveness of the team; however, they might not take a player out because he or she displayed a lack of respect.

Combined, these studies seem to indicate that when faced with discussing their perspectives of morality, coaches tended to indistinctly refer to moral and social values, and highlight the latter because as compared with the former, social values such as self-sacrifice, discipline and work ethic were more effective for winning purposes. This is of importance because coaches' conflictive interpretations of values may result in neglecting or stressing some values over others while setting the moral tone within a team, and intentionally or not, formally or not, moral education is always present in sport situations. ²⁴

The current study is part of a major research project aiming at understanding the role of the coach concerning the moral tone held within the sport team. The overarching purpose of this particular pilot study was to extend previous research seeking to illuminate the coach's perspectives of morality.^22,23 To achieve this purpose, we (a) explored coaches' perspectives of morality, (b) analysed coaches' responses in light of previous evidence reporting coaches' own voices and (c) discussed the theoretical and practical implications of evidence.

Methodological considerations

Participants

Previous literature suggested the study of moral issues is a complicated endeavour because the socio-cultural environment in which each sport takes place may widely vary.^28–30 Thus, we sampled two cases to gain a richer understanding by triangulating two different perspectives. ³¹ Four criteria used to identify the extreme cases were used. Three of these criteria (participant's sex, sport in which participants were involved and sport context (competitive vs. educational)) were selected because prior evidence indicated that lower moral functioning was related to males, ³² participating in medium-to-high physical contact sports ³³ and playing within a team sport dynamic. ³⁴ The fourth criterion, sport context, referred to the frame where the sport was taking part, i.e. competitive (e.g. club) vs. educational institutions (e.g. College of General and Vocational Education (Cegep)), which provides academic preparation for university. We identified two sports that accounted for these characteristics: case 1 included three female coaches coaching at a private club in an artistic, individual, amateur, non-contact sport, born and socialised in Eastern Europe who came to North America during adulthood to work as coaches; whereas case 2 included three male coaches coaching an educational institution an interactive, team, medium-contact, team sport, born and socialised in North America.

We followed the procedures of purposive sampling ³¹ because we aimed to focus on particular characteristics of a population to answer our research question in the best way possible. We identified and contacted one coach from each sport and then, during the interview, we asked them to suggest one colleague whose perspective could be a valuable contribution for the study. As such, using snowball or chain sampling (i.e. identifying new potential interviewees that are, from participants' views, information-rich) we completed the recruitment. ³¹ All four suggested colleagues accepted to participate. Overall, six coaches (Mage = 46.5; SD = 7.6) coaching at different institutions at the time of the interview were recruited. We stopped sampling once our exploratory research question was addressed and the data presented a certain consistency that allowed for within and across case comparison.

In addition, we looked for coaches that had an extended sport involvement both as athletes and as coaches, and were certified within the context of the Canadian National Coaching Certification Program (see Table 1) While extended sport involvement had been previously related to lower moral functioning (e.g. cheating and aggression), ³⁶ we assumed that both criteria would be related to coaches' familiarity with the topic of interest.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Characteristics of the coaches.

Participant	Age	Years of experience as an athlete	Years of experience as a coach	National Coaching Certification Program level completed a	Current level of coaching
Helga	38	7	18	4	National
Olga	40	10	12	4	National
Maria	53	6	25	3	National
Donald	47	6	7	3	Cegep
Darren	44	9	6	3	Cegep
Peter	57	4	20	4	University

a

At the time coaches underwent the Canadian National Coaching Certification Program, the program was organised into five levels of complexity (from community-recreational sport to elite sport) and three components (theory, technical and practical); whereas now is organised in three streams (community sport, competition and instruction) and coaches should solely undergo the stream at which they want to be certified. ³⁵

Results and Discussion

The results were organised into two main themes: (a) coaches' perspectives of morality and (b) coaches' characterisation of morality. To maintain confidentiality, we attributed a pseudonym to each coach. Table 1 provides further information about the participants.

Conclusion

This pilot case study aimed at extending previous research on coaches’ perspectives of morality.^22,23 We conducted face-to-face interviews with three female coaches of an artistic individual sport and three male coaches of an interactive team sport coaches. Coaches referred to morality as falling into two main perspectives. The moral perspective mainly referred to the distinction between right and wrong, doing what is right, and according to coaches coming from the artistic individual sport, it relied upon self-related wellbeing such as ‘be happy with yourself so that you can bring this back’ (Maria). The social perspective dealt with issues that enhanced and facilitated sport involvement (e.g. discipline) and pertained to the domain of team dynamics (e.g. loyalty).

These coaches struggled to define morality and while they were reticent to describe personal moral behaviours, coaches easily elaborated on colleagues’ moral behaviours. One possible explanation is that coaches either do not agree with the values they have to transmit or that they perceive athletes’ moral development is not their responsibility. This position has been described as ‘partisanship’ ²⁴ and opposes another position referred to as ‘indoctrination’ that argues that even when values can be agreed on, as athletes might not be ready or mature enough to understand and evaluate a moral system, the teaching of moral values is understood as an imposition if athletes cannot clearly consent. We can argue plausibly that although the age of the athletes coaches by participants varied from 10 to 21, neither ideas related to partisanship nor to indoctrination were brought up by coaches during the interviews. Moreover, we agreed with Simon and colleagues ²⁴ that moral education is going on all the time, through implicit or explicit coaches’ actions and messages. A second possible explanation is that even when evidence indicates that a committed coach may enhance an athlete's psychosocial and moral development,^19,24,47,48 the most predominant coaching model embraces a ‘rather narrow, rationalistic, bio-scientific approach to coaching through giving precedence to physiological, psychological, and nutritional “facts”’ (p. 163). ⁴⁹ This model contends that technical aspects are crucial components of sports and are reinforced by a coaching culture that highlights reproduction of more experienced coaches’ practices ⁴² and leaves no place for a reflective practitioner. ⁵⁰ This might explain why these coaches are more prone to share their moral reasoning than their moral behaviour. Educated in an environment in which the technical aspects are highlighted, coaches might lack ‘practical wisdom,’ or phronesis, i.e. the lived experience of doing what is ethically right and virtuous. ⁵¹

An explanation for why these coaches did not remember having any moral or ethical education during their certification might be the way moral content was presented to coaches. Following Cushion and colleagues, ⁴³ coaches' education mainly lies upon linear technical models in which coaches' creative and critical thinking or problem solving are not aimed at. As such, in lack of the presence of a phronetic socio-educational approach that prepares coaches to face a complex domain that entails both an individual and social process of interaction, and reflection about context-related situations, and where critical decisions have to be taken,^42,51,52 coaches are cautious to both describe their moral behaviours and approach athletes' moral development because they might not be fully prepared to do it in a confident manner. Thus, before providing any moral-related response, these coaches are used to engaging in an in-depth reflective self-guided process that both considers in-depth available options as well as justifies a decision taken based on pre-existing personal values. Of note, although coaches agreed that morality is context-related, none of them shared an example of how, after reconsidering their own values, they re-negotiated their personal values. It seems instead that coaches re-confirmed rather than re-evaluated their own values.

The fact that the relationship between self-related wellbeing and morality was, not only brought up by coaches in the artistic individual sport but also represents an under-examined issue in the field of sport is significant. Duquin, who studied the moral rationales of 109 coaches found that ‘self-interest orientation’ ⁵³ was the rationale more frequently used by interviewed men coaches and explained this finding as being aligned within an utilitarian culture. The utilitarian approach supports the idea that ‘what ought to be done is always what produces greater utility’ (p. 8). ⁵⁴ Further research is needed to explore the reasons underlying this perspective that was, in our study, brought up by women coaches.

Although the aspects of an intervention were not directly addressed in this study, evidence seems to lead to one direction: coaches’ education. Given the crucial role coaches play concerning morality, ¹⁹ we suggest adopting an approach in which critical thinking and problem solving are enhanced. Concerning the former, the new module of ‘Make ethical decision’ seems to have alleviated the situation by introducing five competencies, namely: valuing, interacting, leading, problem-solving and critical thinking. ⁵⁵ However, one limitation is that this module aims at providing theory to be applied to moral dilemmas, presented as vignettes, a strategy largely criticised because basically, moral reasoning applied to a hypothetical situation cannot equate being faced to a real situation.^12,56–59

As coaches described morality as an ongoing individual and social learning process, it would be important to provide them both the appropriate tools to incorporate the continual promotion of morality through their coaching practices and decisions, and a space to experience what ethically coaching means, specifically when interacting with athletes. ⁶⁰ In this vein, we propose using an interactive approach that provides the coach with the space to be familiar with moral issues common to sport settings by discussing their perspectives and lived experiences with peers.^41,61 Such an approach could help the coaches to be self-aware of issues that might put morality at risk (e.g. discrimination) and to learn how to implement the consideration of moral issues in their coaching practices. Another way to support coaches' moral reflections and behaviours would be to provide in-place mentoring ⁶² and evaluation, as the certification for coaches in Canada foresees concerning technical sport-related issues. ⁶³ In addition, as both the coach and the athlete share a common space in the sport setting, it would be ideal to foster encounters between coaches and athletes as well as generate discussions from the different viewpoints enhancing in-depth discussions. Finally, we suggest that potential interventions targeting coaches be followed up by reinforcing support to coaches over time and providing means of evaluation of how coaches implement content related to morality in their coaching practices.

The present study has some limitations. Because of the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we only conducted one face-to-face interview with six participants; therefore, evidence should be considered as representative of this population. However, we conducted in-depth interviews, we triangulated different perspectives (i.e. internal and external researchers, debriefing meeting with participants), we compared and contrasted the two identified cases all along the analytical process, and we achieved consistency in reported data to support the reliability of the conclusions. Also, by prioritising the coaches' voices, we found support for previous research^22,23 exploring coaches' perspectives of morality, and we extended this literature, for example, by identifying self-related issues associated with coaches' perceptions of morality and providing evidence on how coaches characterise morality. A second limitation concerns the comparison and contrast of cases (i.e. artistic individual sport vs. interactive team sport), we identified certain differences, but due to the way the study was designed, we cannot identify which of the features of each case contributed to such differences in coaches' perspectives.

This study provides a springboard for future areas of research. First, even when we provided empirical support to previous research dealing with coaches’ perspectives of morality, the fact that evidence scarcely discussed in previous sport literature emerged (e.g. the role of self-related wellbeing), suggests that future research should replicate and extend this study to support these findings. Also, some discussions that came up during the interviews need to be explored in-depth. For example, coaches’ responses concerning their own moral behaviours were ambiguous and even if probes were asked, details were not given (e.g. the meaning and the extent of ‘we empower people to speak’ (Peter)). In this case, we speculated that coaches probably discussed situations they felt comfortable with and preserved for them instances in which they were not, but we still do not know the real reason underlying these issues. Second, it would be of interest to explore how and why coaches morally behave in the way they do and how the way they learned morality when they were athletes, influence the way they now teach morality. Third, these coaches noted that moral reasoning, attitudes and behaviours were interrelated. Studies aiming at depicting this dynamic would provide resources to be included in tailored coaching education interventions. Fourth, this study used different criteria to bind the cases. Future research should as well explore in-depth which criterion (or criteria among the socio-demographic and the sport related used in the present study) plays (or play) a core role in shaping the coach's perspective of morality. Fifth, based on the results we obtained, a second encounter with coaches in organised focus groups interviews may probably enrich our understanding of coaches’ perspectives of morality due to the interchange and discussion among coaches. Finally, especially in the case of Canadian coaches, it would be interesting to explore the impact that the certification program that is now in place had so far on coaches’ moral education as none of the interviewed coaches underwent this program. In addition, even if this certification program has been delivered for over 10 years, no research has yet been conducted to evaluate the impact it has on enhancing coaches’ ability to articulate morality.

Conclusion

Literature aiming at exploring coaches' understanding of morality is scant and this study contributed to address this knowledge gap. The fact that it is difficult for coaches to articulate a definition of morality and to describe personal moral behaviours has pedagogical implications to coaching education, suggests that coaches might not have the necessary background to morally guide the athletes in a confident manner. Therefore, if coaches benefit from moral educational interventions tailored to their needs, this will likely be transmitted to their athletes and the undesired consequences associated with encompassing moral behaviour could be potentially reduced and even prevented.