Caring practices among U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I female and male assistant coaches

Abstract

The focus of the current study was on the ways that U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I female and male assistant coaches defined and implemented care with their student–athletes. Twenty-three coaches (14 female, 9 male) from nine different sports (baseball, basketball, golf, rowing, softball, swimming, tennis, track and field/cross-country, and volleyball) agreed to participate in a semi-structured interview. The data were analyzed using Consensual Qualitative Research by a team of four researchers as well as an external auditor. Results indicated that care was encompassed within 12 total categories and four major domains: (a) development of care, (b) definitions of care, (c) manifestations of care, and (d) factors influencing care. Results are presented using direct quotes from assistant coaches in the form of core ideas to highlight the domains and categories. Throughout the discussion, the findings are linked to previous research on care and the broader U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association coaching context. In addition, directions for future research are also put forth.

Keywords

Ethics of care feminist moral theory gender NCAA

Introduction

What is caring? Is caring a trait (e.g. the result of being an inherently caring person) or is it a learned behavior or practice?¹ Feminist scholars like Held,² Gilligan,^3,4 and Noddings^5,6 describe an ethic of care as a clear theoretical and independent alternative to utilitarianism or Kantian moral theory. These scholars contend that a care ethic revolves around communal ties and personal relations; they hold the belief that not only are people capable of thinking about how they should live, they are also capable of asking themselves “… whether they should be caring and what that should mean”² (p.44).

For example, Held² defined a care ethic as containing five foundational features: (a) “…the compelling moral salience of attending to and meeting the needs of the particular others for whom we take responsibility” (p.10); (b) a valuing and appreciation of “… emotions and relational capabilities that enable morally concerned persons in actual interpersonal contexts to understand what would be best” (p.10); (c) a rejection of “… the view of the dominant moral theories that the more abstract the reasoning about a moral problem, the better because the more likely [to?] avoid bias and arbitrariness, the more nearly to achieve impartiality. The ethics of care respects rather than removes itself from the claims of particular others with whom we share actual relationships” (p.11); (d) a new theoretical division between public and private life and their relative importance; and (e) an adoption of “… a relational conception of persons” (p.11), which is very different than Liberal individualism.⁷

Similarly, Gilligan⁴ believed that caring and care “… are not [only] women’s issues, they are human concerns” (p.62). Hearing what she termed a “different” voice in the moral stories that women told when asked about moral conflicts in their lives, Gilligan³ described how embodying a care moral orientation requires responding, respecting, listening, seeing, and paying attention to an “other” person; it is an ethic of relationship, grounded on a foundation of not selflessness, but interdependence.^4–6 In other words, a care moral orientation is a moral framework whereby people make sense of moral dilemmas in their lives by considering the needs of others involved in the dilemma, including themselves.

Noddings’⁵ work on caring began where Gilligan’s work left off—caring actions emerge out of motivational displacement, a concern about “…the welfare, protection or enhancement of the care for” as well as the self (p.23; also see Bagnoli⁷ and Beck⁸). Further, Noddings⁵ claimed that motivational displacement as a psychological state must be connected with engrossment, a commitment to the development of the “cared for.” Noddings^5,6 was particularly interested in how a care ethic could work in educational settings; she described caring as a connection, a relational encounter, between a “carer” and a “cared for.”⁶ To be a “carer” means to be open, receptive, non-selective, and place full attention on a “cared for” and her/his projects (e.g. engrossment and motivational displacement); to be “cared for” means to receive, recognize, and respond to the action of a “carer.”⁶

Caring in context

Fisher and colleagues^9–11 are the only researchers to date who have utilized feminist care theory to systematically explore the construct of caring in U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I (NCAA DI) sport. Prior to this, Newton et al.¹² examined whether a caring climate existed in youth sport and physical activity contexts, defined as “…the extent to which individuals perceive a particular setting to be interpersonally inviting, safe, supportive and capable of providing the experience of being valued and respected” (p.67). For example, in study 1, Newton and colleagues surveyed 353 youth sport camp participants utilizing the Caring Climate Scale¹² (CCS); exploratory factor analysis revealed one single internally consistent factor—caring climate. In study 2, they surveyed 395 youth sport camp participants who completed program evaluations as well as the CCS; confirmatory factor analysis revealed a 13-item form of the CCS.¹²

Gano-Overway and Guivernau¹³ built on Newton et al.’s work to explore how physical educators create and practice a caring climate in their classroom. A semi-structured interview guide was utilized to interview six middle school teachers who were rated by their students as caring. Using inductive content analysis, the researchers constructed three overall themes: (a) being in relation (which included lower order themes such as developing relationships, encouraging/developing caring, and creating connections); (b) creating an inclusive and accepting environment (which included lower order themes such as respecting and trusting students, creating a safe and accepting place, treating students fairly, and being inclusive); and (c) empowering students (which included lower order themes such as supporting development, engaging in caring discipline, and promoting ownership). Gano-Overway and Guivernau concluded that such results were consistent with previous literature on caring climate and could help physical educators work toward the development of a caring climate in their place of work. While their work focuses on caring teachers instead of coaches, it seems relevant to note that a substantial portion of this work also links to an ethic of care and could be useful when thinking about caring coaches.

U.S. NCAA DI sport

Fisher and colleagues^9–11 are the first to systematically explore experiences of caring at the U.S. NCAA DI level. They believe that DI sport could be the place where “performance excellence” is rooted in care. Clearly, coaches are more than just instructing athletes technically and tactically—they are constantly navigating relationships between themselves, their assistant coaches, student–athletes, administrators, and parents; care is either explicitly or implicitly an important part of such relationships.^9–11 Since coaches are the gatekeepers for helping athletes develop, Fisher and colleagues contended that sport psychology researchers should purposefully target them in both research projects and educational interventions, so that structured moral skill-building can eventually be put in place.^9–11 Further, they suggested that a necessary first intervention is to utilize feminist theory within a care moral orientation framework.^3,5,9

Therefore, utilizing feminist-informed and CQR¹⁴ methodology, Knust and Fisher¹⁰ interviewed 12 DI female head coaches identified by others as “exemplary” carers. One purpose of their study was to explore how these female head coaches defined and implemented care in their coaching practice. A secondary purpose was to provide female head coaches with a space to reflect on their daily lives; in feminist work, it is believed that the interview space can be part of the intervention.¹⁴ Five major questions framed the interview guide: (a) What do “exemplary” DI female head coaches describe as the components of care? (b) How do they implement care in their coaching practice? (c) Is “good” coaching the same as “caring” coaching? (d) Which institutional structures encourage or prohibit care? and (e) Which NCAA structures encourage or prohibit care? Upon research team consensus, four major domains were constructed to represent “exemplary” caring female head coaches’ philosophy and actions: (a) team as “family”; (b) holistic care of student–athletes; (c) development of “self-as-coach”; and (d) institutional care. For example, coaches reported focusing on holistic student–athlete development and engaging in behaviors consistent with being a caring administrator (e.g. serving as a “cultivator of a nurturing culture,” “capable and creative pedagogue,” and a “values-driven organizer”⁸ (p.78). Exemplary caring coaches also described having values and visions for their programs that were centered on student–athlete nourishing and flourishing in addition to winning. They also appeared to structure opportunities to self-reflect and engage with caring mentors as well as caring others, because this was seen as an important way to develop care in themselves.¹⁵ Finally, coaches conveyed that they regularly assessed the reality of their relationships with student–athletes, especially by talking with their assistant coaches. To summarize, in multiple ways, exemplary caring female head coach descriptions of caring aligned with feminist descriptions of caring^3–6 coaches reported trying to be receptive, open, and place equal and full attention on each of their student–athletes, treating them as human beings first and student–athletes second.¹¹

In the next study, Fisher et al.¹⁰ explored how both female and male DI head coaches defined and implemented care in their coaching practice. Eighteen coaches (nine female, nine male; average age of 39.2 years) who coached in eight different sports (baseball, rowing, soccer, softball, swimming, track and field/cross-country, volleyball, and golf) were interviewed utilizing the same semi-structured guide as Knust and Fisher¹¹ except for the question about what it meant to be an exemplar carer. A five-member research team—including an external auditor—utilized Consensual Qualitative Research¹ (CQR) for the data analysis. Results were constructed around six domains and 22 categories comprised of core ideas: (a) definition of care, (b) manifestations of care, (c) limits to capacity to be caring, (d) development of care, (e) factors facilitating care, and (f) factors hindering care. For example, both female and male coaches depicted engagement with a caring coaching ethic where the cultivation of community and the personal development of student–athletes were first and foremost to them; this philosophy was put in play during the recruiting process and continued even after student–athlete graduation. In addition, both female and male head coaches appeared oriented toward people first versus things.⁶ However, one unique finding was that almost half of the male head coaches (44%) described a kind of gendered caring, which centered on stereotypical and normative assumptions about males and females; one male head coach’s philosophy and behavior was informed by sexist notions such as males are more ego-driven, harder to read, and have fewer feelings compared to females and are less maintenance in the long run¹⁰ while another described how males were not to be trusted because they take advantage of women so women need to be protected.¹⁰

While head coaches in previous studies provided insight into caring practice at the DI level, other members of the DI sport organization can also play a key role in helping us understand caring practice. For example, assistant coaches are uniquely positioned based on their role in the sport organization; their perceptions of caring practice may be similar to or different from head coaches. Therefore, the impetus for the current study was to explore caring among other members of the NCAA sport organization so as to provide greater generalizability to previous findings from Fisher and colleagues related to head coaches. In addition, since qualitative work has previously provided insight into coaches’ lived experiences of caring practice, continuing to use this method was deemed important to the current study.

Method

Context

Within NCAA DI, 170,000 student–athletes compete on roughly 6000 teams at 350 universities and colleges across the United States.¹⁶ As quoted from the NCAA.org website, DI schools tend to have “the biggest student bodies, manage the largest athletics budgets, and offer the most generous number of scholarships”¹⁶ (p.1). In 2015, 8199 male and 856 female assistant coaches coached DI men’s sports while 3967 male and 3688 female assistant coaches coached women’s sports.¹⁷ In addition, in 2015–2016, only 38.7% of head coaches and 10.5% of athletics directors within DI were female.¹⁶

In terms of morality, the world of sport is different than everyday life.¹⁸ Bredemeier and Shields have suggested that sport requires a moral transformation whereby being egocentric is viewed as fitting; they defined this moral transformation as bracketed morality and reflection on bracketed morality as game reasoning. Therefore, sport can be a challenging context within which to care for others instead of only for the self.

Participants

Twenty-three U.S. NCAA DI assistant coaches participated in the current study (14 female and 9 male; see Tables 1 and 2). Coaches worked in nine sports (baseball, basketball, golf, rowing, softball, swimming, tennis, track and field/cross-country, and volleyball). Female assistant coaches were younger (M = 30.6 years of age) and had less years of coaching experience (M = 6.96 years) than male assistant coaches (M = 36.3 years of age and M = 13.9 years, respectively). Twenty-two of 23 coaches self-identified as U.S. citizens; other self-identifications included Black (1), Japanese (1), Biracial (1), Mexican (2), Caucasian (18), and Hungarian (1). Coaches’ relational status was self-identified as either single (N = 11/23) or married (N = 12/23); in addition, three had children while another reported being pregnant at the time of the interview. Finally, in contrast to 55.6% of male assistant coaches, only 14% of female assistant coaches coached both male and female athletes.

Table 1.

Description of female assistant coaches.

Participant	Age	Nationality	Ethnicity	Years coaching	Religion	Relationship status/ children	Sport
Meredith	32	American	Scott/Irish	10	Episcopalian	Single	Rowing
Emily	34	American	Dutch, Irish	7	Christian	Married, one child on the way	Swimming
April	34	American	Polish	11	Catholic	Married, no children	Track and field
Jennifer	37	American	German	5	LDS	Single	Track and field
Jane	27	American	English, Hungarian	5	Christian	Single	Track and field and XC
Jessie	29	American	English, Scottish	6	Christian	Married, two children	Softball
Monica	26	American	Caucasian/White	4	Christian	Single	Track and field and XC
Taylor	27	American	Mexican	3	Non-religious	Single	Basketball
Tiffany	30	American	Mexican	12	Christian	Married, no children	Volleyball
Isabelle	26	American	Japanese	5	Non-religious	Single	Track and field and XC
Katrina	35	American	Black	6	Christian	Single	Track and field and XC
Kelsey	30	American	Caucasian/White	10	Non-religious	Married, one child	Volleyball
Megan	30	American	Norwegian, Swedish	7	LDS	Single	Swimming
Rachel	31	Hungarian	Hungarian	6.5	Non-religious	Single	Tennis

LDS: Latter Day Saints; XC: Cross-Country.

Table 2.

Description of male assistant coaches.

Participant	Age	Nationality	Ethnicity	Years coaching	Religion	Relationship status/children	Sport
Connor	33	American	German, English	11	Non-religious	Single	M&W swimming
Michael	28	American	Scandinavian, English, German	5	Non-religious	Married, no kids	M&W swimming
Spencer	54	American	German, English	33	Christian— Lutheran	Single	W basketball
Alex	29	American	Native American/ Caucasian	5	Non-religious	Single	W softball
Jerry	48	American	Scottish, Irish, English	20	Christian— Presbyterian	Single	M&W track and field—sprints/throws
Justin	31	American	German	8	Christian— Methodist	Single	M&W track and field—distance
Eric	30	American	Italian, Anglo-Saxon	10	Christian	Married, no kids	M baseball
Jeff	33	American	Portuguese, Irish, and English	10	Catholic	Single	M&W track and field—distance
Carl	41	American	Caucasian	20	Catholic	Married, three kids	W basketball

CQR

Hill¹ stated that CQR is located in the middle of constructivism and postpositivism. This means that the goal of CQR is to re-represent “…how participants (not the researchers) view the world”; in addition, “…different teams would see the data in approximately the same way” (p.27). As in other forms of qualitative methodology, CQR interviewers utilize the same interview guide, try to present results objectively, avoid sweeping interpretations, and report data using the voices of the participants.¹

Researchers who employ CQR also use nine key principles in their work: (a) an inductive approach; (b) open-ended questions in their interviews; (c) a reliance on participant words; (d) context importance; (e) multiple viewpoints; (f) small samples; (g) consensus in data analysis; (h) attention to culture, trustworthiness and ethics; and (i) a continuous return to the data.¹ In other words, rather than fitting the data into some a priori theory, researchers try to understand the phenomena and come to conclusions inductively, based on the data itself. They encourage interviewees to say whatever comes into their head while being interviewed, even though it may not correspond with the interview guide questions. Narratives, stories, symbols, and words are deployed to convey the full meaning of experience. In addition, smaller samples sizes are used so that participant stories can be interpreted deeply and in context.¹

In terms of developing trustworthiness, CQR researchers rely on three criteria: (a) they establish the integrity of the data; (b) they try to balance subjectivity with reflexivity; and (c) they communicate their findings clearly and with applicability not only to research but to practice.¹⁹ This means that they give a detailed description of the methods, including how they triangulated the data, checked for saturation, read the data individually before coming to group consensus about major domains, and scrutinized the generalizability of the results. Finally, there is a continual return to the raw data itself, so that CQR researcher team members’ interpretations are not swayed by their own assumptions and biases.¹ One final note: CQR is mostly inductive in nature; however, there are also deductive elements to interpreting the data as in when researchers continuously check the themes they are finding against previous themes discovered.¹⁹

Overview of research team members

The research team was comprised of five U.S. members. One was an associate professor in sport psychology, three were doctoral students in sport psychology, and the final team member was a clinical assistant professor in sport coaching who served as the team’s external auditor. Three self-identified as Caucasian, one as Asian, and one as biracial; three were female and two were male. In addition, three team members had either served as a volunteer coach, assistant coach, or strength and conditioning coach at the DI level and two were former DI athletes.

Before collecting data, all team members (except for the external auditor) developed a list containing their biases related to DI sport. They then discussed their lists with each other. In addition, the second and third authors underwent individual bracketing interviewers (conducted by the first author), because they served as the interviewers for the study. Based on the results of the bracketing interviews, discussions with each other, previous literature^9–11 and experience at the DI level, team members assumed that: (a) both female and male DI assistant coaches would care about their student–athletes; (b) there may be differences in the ways that they care; and (c) those who coached revenue-generating, pressure-filled sports could have a different perception about what it means to care at this level.

Procedures

After Institutional Review Board approval, 278 female assistant coaches were randomly contacted via email addresses located from team websites and invited to be part of the current study. Only 14 agreed to participate (5% response rate). Three male assistant coaches were contacted directly because they were known by one of the authors; 20 additional male assistant coaches were conveniently sampled via email from a region close to one of the authors. Nine male assistant coaches agreed to participate (39% response rate).

The second and third authors then sent follow-up emails to the 23 coaches who expressed an interest in the study to set up a specific time to be interviewed. They also emailed each an informed consent form. Fifteen of the 23 assistant coaches opted to be interviewed by phone (12 female and 3 male) while eight opted to be interviewed in person (2 female and 6 male).

Interview guide

Fisher and colleagues’¹⁰ head coach interview guide was utilized in the current study with the exception of changing the language to reflect the population being interviewed and splitting two specific questions into four questions. For example, instead of asking “How does your philosophy of care reveal itself in relationship with assistant coaches?” we asked: (a) “How does your philosophy of care reveal itself in relationship with the head coach?” and (b) “How does your philosophy of care reveal itself in relationship with other assistant coaches?” Likewise, instead of asking “How does your philosophy of care reveal itself in relationships with other coaches?” we asked: (a) “How does your philosophy of care reveal itself in relationships with other coaches in your department?” and (b) “How does your philosophy of care reveal itself in relationships with other coaches in your sport?”

All assistant coaches either chose or were assigned a pseudonym to represent themselves in the data. Interviews averaged 27 min in length. After the interviews were audio-recorded, six research assistants plus the second and third authors transcribed them verbatim. Assistant coaches were then emailed their verbatim transcripts and asked if they contained an accurate representation of the interview.²⁰ Only one assistant coach responded; however, no assistant coaches requested any substantive changes to their transcripts.

Data analysis

A more complete description of the CQR data analytic process can be found in Hill.¹ However, like Fisher and colleagues,^9–11 there were four major steps that the research team undertook after data collection and individual reading of the transcripts: (a) broad domains were created via data sorting; (b) categories were then developed and provided a more specific description of what DI assistant coaches conveyed under each domain; (c) core ideas or using assistant coaches’ own words to illustrate the categories and domains were then fleshed out under each category; and (d) after the team reached consensus about steps (a) through (c), the second and third authors conducted a cross analysis, a re-examination of the transcripts where researchers do a frequency count of how many participants described each category.¹

The external auditor

Next, the individual transcripts as well as the domain and demographic tables were sent via email to the external auditor.¹ While agreeing for the most part with the research team’s conclusions, the external auditor challenged them to re-explore the category names to better fit the data. As a result, slight modifications were made to the original domain table (see Table 3). As a final step, all assistant coaches were sent the domain table (e.g. member-checking). One assistant coach responded that the table looked “fine” and that s/he agreed with the findings; no other coaches responded.

Table 3.

Summary of domains, categories, core ideas, and frequencies for DI female and male assistant coaches.

Domains/categories	Illustrative core ideas	Frequencies (female/male coaches)
Domain I: Development of care
A. Playing for, watching coaches	Watching and being developed by other coaches; being mentored by coaches	12/14, 4/9
B. In the context of family	Feeling cared for by parents and siblings while growing up; having children	7/14, 4/9
Domain II: Definitions of care
A. Whole-person development	Developing the athlete both within and outside of sport; physical/social/emotional mental aspects	12/14, 7/9
B. Foundational	My coaching starts with care at the base	3/14, 6/9
C. Love	I love the athletes I coach	4/14, 4/9
Domain III: Manifestations of care
A. Communicating	Verbally communicating with athletes; we meet outside of practice to discuss how they are doing	10/14, 6/9
B. Building relationships	Taking the time to build relationships by caring about the entire athlete	8/14, 5/9
C. Being available/open-door policy	My door is always open; I am always available	5/14, 8/9
D. Individualizing	Finding out what makes each athlete tick	5/14, 6/9
Domain IV: Factors influencing care
A. NCAA rules	Rules both facilitate and inhibit care	13/14 females
B. College/university admin.	University helps athletes as students	7/14 females
C. Athletic department	Loyalty, comradery, isolation	6/9 males
D. Christian/religious institution	Easier to care because of institution values	3/14, 1/9

Note. General (all or all but one of the cases); Typical (more than half the cases); Variant (half the cases or less).

DI: Division I; NCAA: National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Results and discussion

The purpose of the current study was to assess U.S. NCAA DI female and male assistant coaches’ perceptions of caring and how they enacted it in practice utilizing the same basic interview guide as Fisher and colleagues in previous research studies.^10,11 Specific results from interviews with 23 U.S. NCAA DI assistant coaches demonstrated that care was comprised of four domains: (a) development of care; (b) definitions of care; (c) manifestations of care; and (d) factors influencing care (see Table 3). Using assistant coaches’ own voices through the use of quotes, major findings are presented next, interwoven with discussion from previous literature. There are places of both convergence with and divergence from previous literature.

Domain I: Development of care

In Domain I, DI assistant coaches described how they learned to care. The following categories were constructed to represent their perceptions of the development of care: (a) by playing for and watching coaches and (b) in the context of family. In fact, 69.5% of assistant coaches reported that they had experienced caring coaching themselves (12/14 female and 4/9 male, respectively); they explained that through watching and being developed by other coaches, they were able to build their own understanding of caring for student–athletes. While head coaches in Fisher et al.’s¹⁰ study described how a variety of role models had helped them learn how to care, in the current study, assistant coaches named head coaches as the role model they most frequently used to develop their own style of caring. As Jessie said, “…all of my coaches…I’ve been able to pull different things from them on how to care for the girls that I work with now.” For Isabelle, it was her current head coach: “I also learned a lot from the head coach; just watching her, she’s kind of become a mentor for me.” These results support previous coaching development research that has found that learning from prior playing and coaching experiences^21,22 as well as from observing and interacting with other coaches^23,24 are informal learning situations that influence the development of coaches.

Second, 47.8% of assistant coaches reported learning to care in the context of family (7/14 female and 4/9 male, respectively). For example, Jane discussed how her home life growing up enabled her to care for and appropriately love the women she currently coaches:

…as far as…care…a lot of it…was probably taught naturally in my home…I think the way, the best way that I can love…women in general…has been taught by me…by my parents and then my sister as well.

As Carl stated, he learned how to really care when he became a parent:

There is no doubt that the place I learned the most in my life to be a better coach, period, much less as it pertains to caring, is becoming a parent. You figure out what caring for somebody really means.

As Gilligan³ noted, it is often not until men become parents that they embody a care moral orientation. Noddings also suggested that her own experience of a care ethic “…comes mainly from my experience in teaching and mothering”²⁵ (p.125). In Fisher and colleagues’ previous work with head coaches, being a parent also figured prominently in how DI head coaches reported learning to care for student–athletes.¹⁰

Domain II: Definitions of care

In Domain II, DI assistant coaches revealed how they defined caring for student–athletes at this level. These definitions were constructed by the research team into one of three categories: (a) whole-person development, (b) foundational, and (c) love. In fact, 82.6% of assistant coaches defined caring as working toward the overall well-being of their student–athletes (e.g. whole-person development; 12/14 and 7/9, respectively). Similar to DI head coaches in both the Knust and Fisher¹¹ and Fisher et al.¹⁰ studies, this meant being supportive of all facets of student–athletes’ lives, not just in their athletic lives. As Monica stated:

…taking an interest in them as a whole person, that’s probably the biggest thing that I’m about… is…whole person development. And, you have to…take an interest in their [sport], of course, but also in academics and spiritual growth and social stuff, things like that.

Likewise, Spencer said:

You’re concerned with their total well-being, their welfare, their safety, their health, their mental, emotional, physical, spiritual state. It’s a multidimensional thing…you care about them and you want to see their growth and their evolution and that they’re moving toward the best they can be in all of those areas.

Additionally, 39% of assistant coaches believed that caring was foundational to coaching (3/14 and 6/9, respectively). As Emily posited, “I think it’s just kind of at the foundation, sort of at the foundation of everything.” Taylor said, “So, caring is why I coach…it’s the most important reason, I think, and factor of why anyone should be in coaching.” And, Eric commented:

It’s probably one of the most important things as a leader, not just as a coach. If you want to function as a team, you have to respect one another and one of the fastest ways for guys to understand and to respect a leader is to understand that they actually really, truly care about them.

Literature related to the psychology of coaching and the coach–athlete relationship confirms this sentiment.^26,27 For example, as Ehrmann and colleagues²⁶ wrote, “…we knew we could make a difference by creating a caring community designed to build a web of supportive relationships. We didn’t want them to survive; we wanted them to thrive” (p.413). In addition, Jowett and Shanmugam²⁷ posited that “emotional caring and support” (p.472) are part of closeness, one of four key properties which undergirds the coach–athlete relationship.

Finally, a unique finding in this domain was that 34.8% of assistant coaches articulated that caring also included love for their student–athletes (4/14 and 4/9, respectively). In fact, a greater number of DI assistant coaches described how they “loved” the student–athletes under their care as compared to DI head coaches in previous studies.^10,11 As Megan put it, “I define [caring] as, you know, the…the feelings I have for the athletes…I love every single one of them. Like, I try and develop a relationship with every single one of them.” And, Jessie said, “Like, when I think of care, I think of love.” Ehrmann and Jordan²⁶ described wrestling with the question of, “Can you really love your players and win?” (p.132); they determined that, in fact, coaches could even “…use sports to help develop young men and women with the capacity to love and be loved” (p.349).

Domain III: Manifestations of care

In Domain III, DI assistant coaches described specific behaviors that they engaged in which they believed demonstrated to student–athletes that they cared for and about them. Of interest was that many of these same categories were also described by head coaches in Fisher et al.’s¹⁰ study, including: (a) communicating, (b) building relationships, (c) being available/open-door policy, and (d) individualizing. For example, 69.6% of assistant coaches discussed verbally communicating with student–athletes, especially outside of practice time (e.g. communicating; 10/14 and 6/9, respectively). Taylor said, “…I’m big on communication. So, I think it could be as simple as communicating that you do care.” For some, promoting communication with student–athletes took the form of a coffee date outside of practice. As Jane put it:

I’ll usually just say like, “Let’s grab a cup of coffee in-between your classes,” “Let’s just have like a little chat,” “Let’s make sure everything’s going okay”…It can look like, you know, one-on-one quick conversation [or] it can look like one-on-one longer conversation.

Tiffany also discussed grabbing coffee with her athletes to check in with them regarding things outside of sport:

So, something I actually started this past year was we have like coffee or tea dates, um, just so that they can be on the same page with me, so that I know what’s going on academically and maybe emotionally.

Finally, as Connor put it:

It’s checking in, “Where are you?” “Where are we at mentally, physically, emotionally?” And, “Where do we go from here?”…you need to understand where they are in terms of their goals. Then, their goal needs to become your goal and that’s part of the constant dialogue.

In the current study, the majority of DI assistant coaches utilized communication as the primary way to connect with and care for student–athletes under their purview. According to Forood, communication is especially important for assistant coaches because they are going to be the person who student–athletes go to first with problems and questions because of their availability compared with the head coach.²⁸ Forood also suggested that athletes often share ideas or discuss problems with assistant coaches to reach resolutions without including the head coach.

As Noddings also reminds us, caring is about checking in with the other. She suggested that for caring to occur, carers “…need to begin with dialogue. That means listening as well as talking. Not just telling people what to do, but listening to find out what they need, what they want, how they see things”²⁵ (p.125). Noddings⁶ believed that seeing, paying attention to, listening to, respecting and responding to an “other” person are at the heart of a care orientation. In fact, it isn’t enough to just talk about caring for another person; caring requires real human action as well as response; to be a carer means you have to do something to be responding to the “other’s” needs.^6,8,10,11

In addition, 56.5% of assistant coaches showed that they cared through the development and building of relationships with their student–athletes (building relationships; 8/14 and 5/9, respectively). For example, Jennifer said,

…I think that, our coaching staff, we try to have a good relationship with our kids…but a lot of times we have to, I think reach out to build relationships and be interested in what’s going on in their lives.

Katrina described specific behaviors she engaged in to build relationships:

…I try to build the relationships with them by having like goal meetings, being interested in things that they’re doing outside of track or what they’re doing in the classroom, and how they’re taking care of classroom things that they’re doing, and stuff like that.

And, Alex said:

First, they become your recruit, then they become your athlete, and then they…and then they become your family member. The fact that we care about our athletes in the sense that, I could tell you, if you’ve been on the team for a year, I could tell you most of their birthdays now. I could tell you what classes that they take. I could tell you what their interests are, what their likes are, and what their dislikes are.

The third category in Domain III centered on being available/having an open-door policy, which 56.5% of assistant coaches described (5/14 and 8/9, respectively). DI assistant coaches purposefully encouraged student–athletes to come to their office at any time to discuss anything that was on their minds. As Jane stated:

And then, I think the biggest [thing] that I think that I always make clear to them is I have an open door policy in my office. So, it’s always open—they’re welcome and encouraged to come by with any and everything.

April said that she would drop whatever she was doing in order to help:

…like making time…for the athletes and knowing that I’m like consciously making time and making an effort to just do little things like I’m already doing…I think because we create an open door policy and that they’ve discovered that they are welcomed any time that they have come in. And that I do drop anything when they come in and say, “I need to talk to you.”

As Jeff stated:

Having the open door policy…talk[ing] about anything running-related or not. That is a big thing I think because I know every day I have kids that come in and have some kind of issues—some kind of thing—and to be able to talk through some problems, to be able to talk through whatever they need…just [creating] an environment that they are comfortable with.

Lastly, 47.8% of DI assistant coaches demonstrated that they cared by individualizing their care for student–athletes (5/14 and 6/9, respectively). They described how they worked to get to know each athlete on his/her own terms because each was unique and responded differently from the rest. As Emily summarized:

…I think I just try to get to know each one individually, because each person responds to something different…And so, I think you have to get to know that person and kind of what makes them tick first. And then, you can care about them or you know show them that you care in the ways that they respond to the most.

Michael said:

I think that’s the art. It’s kind of understanding that balance, taking them where they’re at, at that moment. And knowing, “Do you push or do you put an arm around their shoulder?” Then, five minutes later, does that change? An hour later, does that change? And, so forth.

And, Justin stated:

I’ve had some people think it’s a gender, um, side. You can always lay into a guy. You can’t do that to women. I don’t find that to be necessary. I think it’s just individual-based. Some guys, they don’t handle someone pushing on them. Some women, I’ve had come up to me, Coach get into me and into the race. I need—I kind of need a little bit of that.

In summary, caring assistant coaches at the NCAA DI level demonstrated care by communicating, taking their time to build relationships, being available/having an open-door policy, and individualizing their caring for student–athletes. As Noddings suggested, at the heart of demonstrating care is communication and persistent effort:

…we need persistent effort at establishing relations of care and trust…And, that means communicating…you say, “…I would like to hear from you how it’s going. What went right with it? What went wrong with it? Do we need to spend more time on it? Is there something else that we can do?”²⁵ (p.131)

One final comparison to previous research regarding how coaches describe demonstrating care¹⁰: DI assistant coaches in the current study did not describe holding athletes accountable or post-graduation success and appreciation as main themes. This could be because assistant coaches are not as responsible for these activities—head coaches are. As Forood explained, while assistant coaches can handle smaller issues that may arise on a team, the head coach is responsible for making decisions about more significant concerns and reporting these back to the players.²⁸ Players also do not often view assistant coaches as the final authority. Additionally, assistant coaches often have a shorter tenure at schools than head coaches, which could prevent them from coaching the same athletes from recruitment through post-graduation.²⁹

Domain IV: Factors influencing care

In the final domain, DI assistant coaches in the current study revealed how certain NCAA DI structural relationships either positively or negatively influenced their ability to care effectively. Four categories were constructed related to this domain: (a) NCAA rules, (b) college/university administration, (c) athletic department, and (d) Christian/religious institution.

For example, 92.9% of DI female assistant coaches explained how certain NCAA rules either facilitated or inhibited their ability to care for student–athletes in the ways they wanted to (N = 13/14). Megan had a fairly positive view about the role of NCAA rules in caring for student–athletes:

I think the NCAA was instituted to protect athletes. You know, to make it equal opportunity fair…and in some degree for each sport…since every sport is different. And, to instill new rules, universal rules for all universities so that…it’s equal competition for everybody and that it’s fair for everybody. So, you know, I think that’s definitely essential. And, without the NCAA would be a pretty big mess…but I do think that the rules they institute are helpful…and do show care for an athlete.

However, April felt that NCAA rules limited her ability to care for student–athletes:

…I think the biggest thing [that] inhibits is…some of the NCAA rules. Because you can only do…so much with meals. Or…you can’t…if like somebody is just like having a problem, you can’t always just step in and help when really all they need is just somebody that can just…stop by and help them do something. And, you can’t always do that because [of] the NCAA rules.

When reflecting upon how much or how little other sport constituents cared for student–athletes or coaches, half of the DI female assistant coaches in the current study reported that their college/university administration was supportive (N = 7/14). As Kelsey specified, her university demonstrated care for student–athletes via academic privileges:

…the university cares for them by understanding their schedule, you know. It may be small, but allowing them to register first for classes, knowing that they’ve got a commitment to their sport, and…you know, need to be in certain classes to stay on track to graduate and not miss classes for traveling and things like that.

In contrast, male assistant coaches reported more incidents of caring and non-caring at the athletic department level. As Carl put it:

As an assistant coach, you don’t have a lot of communication with those senior administrators…[and] not in a way that it would lend itself to really, you know, honestly, you know, really caring about them, you know, to a point where I would say it’s, you know, that it becomes personal. It’s almost like the caring stops at the professional level.

As Jerry stated, “I don’t feel supported, I never have….never any acknowledgement that, ‘Hey, uh, we noticed what you’ve done. We notice what your athletes are doing’…just some acknowledgement would go a long way.” In fact, 66.7% of male assistant coaches felt that assistant coach comradery as well as their relationship with the head coach played stronger roles in their feelings of being cared for than relationships with college/university administrators (6/9 male coaches). For example, 33.3% of DI male assistant coaches vocalized strong loyalty to the head coach that they worked for (3/9 male assistant coaches); loyalty has been tauted as one of the most important characteristics of a good assistant coach.³⁰ Connor, Michael, Spencer, Eric, Jeff, and Carl used phrases such as “We are in this together” to highlighted the importance of relationships with other assistant coaches, especially those across the conference who worked in the same sport. They described how, even though they were competitors of other assistant coaches, they could problem-solve together about similar issues they all faced as assistant coaches. As Spencer suggested:

One of the things that I always try to do on the road…is spend time being accessible…being willing to share, opening up your practices to other [assistant] coaches, inviting them in, [and] sharing information. Those are things where I think you show care. That’s the professional level, now then there’s a personal level. Certainly, you’re going to be more familiar with your friends in the profession, people you’ve known and built a relationship with. But, there are times where even you’re going to hear about something—somebody maybe lost a job or something, has had somebody in the family, something’s happened—and just reaching out to that person, saying, “Hey look, I’m thinking about you, praying for you and your family. Hope you’re doing okay with everything.”

Finally, 17.3% of DI assistant coaches worked at a Christian/religious institution (3/14 and 1/9, respectively). These coaches illustrated how such a religious environment not only matched their own coaching philosophies but provided additional support to help them care for student–athletes. As Jane depicted, “…maybe because we are at a Christian-affiliated university, there is very much a focus on…establishing relationships that are not just between student–athletes and their coaching staff, but between administrators and the offices.” Perhaps because of the mind/body/spirit emphasis at religious institutions, assistant coaches who work in these environments feel better supported in their efforts at whole-person, student–athlete development.

Convergence and divergence from previous care studies

The purpose of the current study was to assess U.S. NCAA DI female and male assistant coaches’ perceptions of caring and how they enacted it in practice. The same basic interview guide was used as in Fisher and colleagues’^10,11 previous care work with slight modifications in language. Results from interviews with 23 U.S. NCAA DI assistant coaches demonstrated that care was comprised of four domains: (a) development of care, (b) definitions of care, (c) manifestations of care, and (d) factors influencing care (see Table 3). There were places of both convergence with and divergence from previous literature.

For example, similar to Fisher and colleagues’ previous work with DI exemplary as well as other head coaches and their perceptions of caring,^10,11 assistant coaches in the current study perceived that learning to care was a function of being in relationship with others. For exemplary and other caring head coaches, this meant learning from previous coaching experiences—both the good and the bad—and becoming parents^10,11; for assistant coaches, this meant playing for, watching, and being mentored by coaches as well as feeling cared for by parents and siblings while growing up. In terms of defining care, head coaches in previous studies as well as assistant coaches in the current study described the holistic development of student–athletes, including developing them both within and outside of sport. And, in terms of the manifestations of care—or how coaches described enacting care—all coaches in previous DI care studies as well as in the current study reported using the skills of listening, communicating, individualizing, and building relationships to demonstrate to student–athletes that they cared; these skills that were consistently mentioned across groups.

However, DI assistant coaches in the current study differed from both exemplary caring head coaches and other head coaches in a variety of ways.^10,11 For example, they were younger, had less experience, and more were married at the time of the interviews. In addition, in terms of learning to care, assistant coaches did not describe the “team as family” structure that exemplary caring coaches did, with its concomitant description of (heteronormative) roles, head coach as “transitional parent,” and the caring of assistant coaches by head coaches.¹¹ This seems logical since DI assistant coaches are not responsible for student–athletes and other coaches in the same way that head coaches are; it is perhaps also true that generational differences existed with regard to beliefs about family structures in general, and whether or not these beliefs can be applied to team dynamics.

With regard to defining care, assistant coaches in the current study described love as a part of their definition of care while both exemplary caring head coaches and other head coaches talked about using “tough love” to motivate athletes.^10,11 In addition, some assistant coaches as well as exemplary caring coaches¹¹ talked about caring as foundational to their coaching practice while other head coaches in the previous study did not.¹⁰ And, with regard to enacting care, assistant head coaches and other head coaches described having an “open door” policy while exemplary caring coaches did not.^10,11 The fact that having an open door policy emerged from assistant coach interviews is not surprising since they are often tasked with the responsibility of being available 24/7 for student–athletes in a way that head coaches are not.

Finally, with regard to the institutional structures that coaches in both the current as well as previous studies perceived as either facilitating or prohibiting their ability to enact care with student–athletes, findings were mixed. Some coaches believed that the NCAA, the University, and the Athletic Department facilitated caring for student–athletes (e.g. rules are in place that limit practice hours to protect student–athletes; student–athletes have access to the best academic counseling, nutrition, and other sport medicine services to keep them on track and healthy), while others viewed these institutional structures as inhibiting care, particularly with regard to everyday acts that might make athletes lives easier (e.g. the inability to give a student–athlete a ride to the airport during the holidays or pay for a student–athlete’s meal when s/he is not financially able to pay).¹¹

There are also connections to be made to the work of feminist moral theorists like Gilligan⁴ and Noddings.⁶ Both in the current as well as in previous studies, U.S. NCAA DI coaches defined care as whole-person development, as foundational to coaching, and, in fact, as an act of love. They spoke about building relationships with student–athletes that were based on being available, communicating, and individualizing care. As Fisher et al.¹⁰ previously noted, this definition and “doing” of care is consistent with a caring that focuses on people first and not things first.⁶ In addition, it contains similar components to Noddings’ conceptual framework for promoting caring teachers, Beck’s⁸ plan for promoting caring administrators, and Gano-Overway and Guivernau’s¹³ descriptions of caring physical educators.

Limitations and future directions

There are several limitations contained within the current study. First, in terms of demographics, assistant coaches were not asked about their sexual orientation. Second, a majority of the assistant coaches self-identified as Caucasian. Third, after all interviews were conducted, we became aware of the fact that female assistant coaches were not asked directly whether caring was foundational to their coaching while male assistant coaches were; as a result, the gender difference reported by participants on this question needs to be interpreted with caution. Another limitation was that the response rate was lower and the length of interviews was shorter in the current study as compared with head coaches in Fisher et al.’s study.¹⁰ Perhaps similarly to head coaches, assistant coaches at the DI level felt as though they could not take much time off from their job responsibilities.¹⁰ In addition, some may have been unwilling to go into greater detail based on the types of questions that were being asked about caring¹; after all, it has been communicated to us that the construct of care can seem too amorphous or emotional in a setting like DI sport where excellence and a certain degree of stoicism is demanded every day. Finally, interviews were conducted via phone versus Skype or Facetime; therefore, we cannot speak to the body language of the participants during the interviews.

In addition, as one reviewer rightly pointed out, while there is value in interviewing coaches to determine their perceptions of caring and how they enact it in practice, there is no way of knowing whether these coaches are actually caring or are perceived as caring by their student–athletes. Therefore, their responses cannot be assumed to be best practices for engaging in caring; rather, the results of this study illustrate how assistant coaches perceive they should care. Therefore, it would be helpful in the future to interview student–athletes to determine their perceptions regarding which coaches are caring and to flesh out what practices those coaches are engaging in. It would also be beneficial to interview DI University as well as NCAA administrators to determine whether their views on caring and the enactment of caring are consistent with coaches and student–athletes; care and caring practices could also be enacted differently depending on the skill of the student–athlete, the winning record of the athletic program, etc. In addition, there is a need for some mixed method and ethnographic work (e.g. multiple interviews over time with observations). Finally, while not a major theme, we noticed that assistant coaches in the current study reported having difficulty taking the time to care for themselves, even though they preached self-care to their athletes. This finding also deserves more attention in terms of future research.

Practical implications

Knust and Fisher¹¹ offered several practical suggestions to DI administrators regarding the implementation of a care philosophy at this level. We believe that these same suggestions could be followed for assistant coaches as well and include: (a) if a care orientation is deemed an important strength by administrators—alongside “winning” in DI sport—then they should recruit and hire assistant coaches who have a care moral orientation, and vice-versa (e.g. assistant coaches should look for administrators who espouse this philosophy); (b) once caring assistant coaches are hired, caring administrators should communicate regularly with them; this makes assistant coaches feel empowered; (c) caring assistant coaches should work with head coaches who share their caring philosophy; and (d) student–athletes should do their homework to determine whether the assistant coaches they are being recruited by have a caring philosophy if this is important to them. As Noddings stated, “A school can’t care. An organization can’t care. A nation can’t care. What these organizations can do is to establish structures and social arrangements under which caring can flourish”²⁵ (p.128). She described the steps that administrators can take to move to a more caring system as the following:

You ask yourself, “What do I need to do to establish an environment in which caring can flourish?” And right after that, you need to talk to people. You need to listen to them. You need to find out what it is they seek, what it is they see, their ideas, and all the rest. It’s a slower process, but one that never ends. Once you get going, you really have something wonderful going there.²⁵ (p.128)

Conclusion

In conclusion, in listening to the voices of 23 U.S. NCAA DI assistant coaches in the current study, there are some valuable lessons to be learned about how these coaches perceived they were enacting caring practices. We believe that coaches are the necessary first step in changing the DI caring culture, because they are the caretakers of student–athlete development; they traverse across relationships, advocate for student–athletes with other coaches, and interact with both head coaches and athletic department administrators. We believe that DI sport can and should be a place where “performance excellence” is not possible without a caring climate and caring coaching.⁹ Therefore, it is our hope that current and future researchers as well as administrators continue to push for the creation of caring DI climates that will improve the overall experience for student–athletes and coaches at this level.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Lori Gano-Overway and Dr. Susannah Knust for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this draft.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bagnoli C. Virginia Held: The ethics of care: Personal, political, global. Notre Dame philosophical reviews: A electronic journal [Internet], http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-ethics-of-care-personal-political-global/ (2006, accessed 6 November 2017).

Held

. The ethics of care: Personal, political, global, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Gilligan

. In a different voice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Gilligan

. The birth of pleasure: A new map of love, New York, NY: Random House, 2011.

Noddings

. Caring: A feminine approach to ethical & moral education, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984.

Noddings

. The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1992.

Beck

. Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession, New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1994.

Fisher

. “Where are your women?” The challenge to care in the future of sport. Sex Roles 2014; 74: 1–11.

Knust

Fisher

. NCAA Division I female head coaches’ experiences of exemplary care within coaching. Int Sport Coach J 2015; 2: 94–107.

10.

Fisher

Bejar

Larsen

et al.

Caring in the U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Sport: The perspectives of 18 female and male head coaches. Int J Sport Sci Coach 2017; 12: 75–91.

11.

Newton

Magyar

Kim

et al.

Psychometric properties of the caring climate scale in a physical activity setting. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 2007; 16: 67–84.

12.

Gano-Overway

Newton

Magyar

et al.

Influence of caring youth sport contexts on efficacy-related beliefs and social behaviors. Dev Psychol 2009; 45: 329–340.

13.

Lather

. Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Women’s Stud Int Forum 1988; 11: 569–581.

14.

Hill CE. Interview with Clara E. Hill about Consensual Qualitative Research. In: Association AP (ed), http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/interviews/4313031-hill.aspx (2015 accessed 6 November 2017).

15.

Werthner

Trudel

. A new theoretical perspective for understanding how coaches learn to coach. Sport Psychol 2006; 20: 198–212.

16.

NCAAa. Division I, http://www.ncaa.org/about?division=d1: NCAA, http://www.ncaa.org/about?division=d1 (2017, accessed 6 November 2017).

17.

Lapchick R and Baker D. The 2015 racial and gender report card: College sport The University of Central Florida: The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, http://nebula.wsimg.com/210cb7ee5ca463c836c1002552a6d338?AccessKeyId=DAC3A56D8FB782449D2A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 (2016, accessed 6 November 2017).

18.

Bredemeier

BJL

Shields

DLL

. Game reasoning and interactional morality. J Genet Psychol 1986; 147: 257–275.

19.

Hill

. Consenual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomenon, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2012.

20.

Patton

. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2002.

21.

Jiménez

Lorenzo

Ibáñez

. Development of expertise in Spanish elite basketball coaches. RICYDE: Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte 2009; 5: 19–32.

22.

Jones

Armour

Potrac

. Constructing expert knowledge: A case study of a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport Educ Soc 2003; 8: 213–229.

23.

Cushion

Armour

Jones

. Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest 2003; 55: 215–230.

24.

Erickson

Bruner

MacDonald

et al.

Gaining insight into actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge. Int J Sport Sci Coach 2008; 3: 527–538.

25.

Kawamura

Eisler

. An interview with Nel Noddings, PhD. Cross Cult Manage: Int J 2013; 20: 124–133.

26.

Ehrmann

Jordan

. InsideOut coaching: How sports can transform lives, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2011.

27.

Jowett

Shanmugan

Relational coaching in sport: Its psychological underpinnings and practical effectiveness. In: Schinke

McGannon

Smith

(eds). Routledge international handbook of sport psychology, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 471–484.

28.

Forood

The assistant coach’s role. In: Reynaud

(ed). She can coach!, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005, pp. 155–164.

29.

Myerberg P, Schnaars C and Berkowtiz P. Assistant coaching: Tough job, but many want to do it 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/12/11/sports-special-report-college-football-itinerant-assistant-coaches-pay/3987289/ (2013, accessed 6 November 2017).

30.

Sabock

. Coaching: A realistic perspective, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005.