Coaches’ perceived pitfalls in delivering psychological skills training to high-level youth athletes in fencing and football

Abstract

The current study examined how two high-level coaches in fencing and football perceived the challenges that emerged during a three-month coach education programme aimed at them delivering psychological skills training to athletes. We used action research as the study design and collected data using observations, six semi-structured interviews, and one focus group. We analysed the data using a thematic content analysis. Our findings showed that the coaches struggled with role clarity. The psychological impact was that coaches struggled with identifying the borders between delivering psychological skills training as a part of their coaching and when to refer athletes to sport psychology experts. The coaches also suggested that gaining more knowledge in sport psychology allowed them to analyse the athletes. However, the coaches viewed this as a potential area for abusing trust in the coach-athlete relationship. We suggest that coach education programmes should include content on ethical dilemmas to safeguard against potential abuse of the coach-athlete relationship.

Keywords

Achievement goal theory,attention,coach-athlete relationship,coach development,ethics,self-efficacy,sport psychology

The existing sport psychology literature is abundant with the strong influence of coaches on their athletes. Storm, Henriksen, Larsen, and Christensen¹ explained that coach-athlete relationships could have a crucial influence on both career trajectory as well as existential importance (i.e., influential in both athletic and non-athletic contexts). Along those lines, Paquette and Sullivan² argued that the psychological development of athletes remains a primary objective for coaches. As presented in the following sections, there is a substantial volume of research literature covering the positive influence of coaches delivering psychological and/or life skills training.^3,4 Further, Gould, Damarjian, and Medbery⁵ suggested that becoming a successful coach entails being a student of sport psychology because it allows coaches to better develop their athletes and support them through changing mental states.

The suggestion that coaches could deliver psychological skills training is based on the idea that coaches might have a significant role in developing the psychological skills of young athletes.^2,4 Coaches could help athletes learn life skills,⁶ and Gould and Carson³ suggest that sport is a desirable arena to do so since it is a valued social activity, in which most young people engage. Coaches could also support youth social development,⁷ perhaps enhance the motivational climate,⁸ and support a postitive youth development (PYD) agenda.^9,10 The PYD agenda assumes that the adult with whom young people interact the most is the coach.⁹ Harnessing the potentials of the individuals (e.g., coaches) in athletes’ social environments could promote positive development.¹¹ The motivation for the present study extends from this line of research and acknowledges that many young high level athletes spend a considerable time with their coaches. However, many coaches might not have the necessary training or knowledge to foster lifeskill development, psychological skills training, or PYD.⁷ Researchers have sought to support coaches in delivering psychological skills training,^10,12 integrating psychological skills in coaching practice,^2,13 and coaching lifeskills.^6,14 Nevertheless, the number of papers addressing the possible pitfalls or negative sides of training coaches to deliver, for example, psychological skills training are negligible.

Most of the research above praises the positive influence of coaches delivering psychological skills to athletes. A line of older research inquired into the possible issues coaches face when taking on tasks within sport psychology. On one hand, Buceta¹⁵ argues that coaches stepping into the realm of sport psychology may be ‘highly beneficial’ (p. 76). The reasons for this suggestion were that coaches may have a deep appreciation for the context and potentially a close relationship with the athletes already.^15,16 However, delivering psychological skills training may result in a blurring of the coach’s role and the role of a sport psychologist.¹⁷ Further, Ellickson and Brown¹⁸ argue that there may be possible adverse effects of coaches delivering such skills. Also, the blurring of the two roles could raise concerns over the professional judgement of the coach since it could place both athletes and coaches in potentially exploitative positions.¹⁸

Proponents of coaches being responsible for the psychological development of their athletes argue that it is a justifiable and natural role.¹³ Further, much of the research^16,18,19 bringing awareness to the potential pitfalls of coaches delivering psychological skills training is dated. The research might not capture the current context and landscape of coaching nor that of sport psychology. Furthermore, it seems that contemporary research has abandoned the potentially negative influences of coaches delivering psychological skills training.^1,6,20 It has done so despite the arguments that taking on some tasks within sport psychology may lead to challenges and issues in the coach-athlete relationship.¹⁸ Ignoring the potential adverse sides of the coach-athlete relationship has in recent years underpinned several scandals in high-performance sports.^21,22 The state of research means that there is an exciting potential to add to the existing literature by critically examining potential pitfalls of coaches delivering psychological skills training to athletes.

The purpose of the present article is to provide focused analysis examining how two high-level coaches in fencing and football perceived the challenges that emerged during a three-month coach education programme aimed at them delivering psychological skills training to athletes. The substantial contribution of the present article is that it examines the process of how coaches develop competencies within psychological skills training. It focuses on how this process might give rise to challenges and ethical dilemmas in the current coaching and sport psychology context. The data for this article is a subset of data from a larger study into how to design and implement a training programme for coaches to deliver psychological skills training to their athletes.

Procedure

We carried out the study over six months from June until December. The study used the participative inquiry epistemology, which framed the methods in the study.²³ The importance of participation echo the views of Logstrup²⁴ who argued that everything is entagled. Doing research into the practices of coaches meant that we as researchers reached into their lives and became part of it. In the participative epistemology, we took an active role in the research and aimed to draw the participants into the process.

All organisations and participants are anonymous according to the agreed ethical guidelines and consent. We chose the two sports, football and fencing, based on maximum variation criteria.²⁵ We wanted to study a team sport and an individual sport (there is a team element in fencing, yet, carried out as a series of individual bouts), as well as a sport requiring a ball and one that did not (e.g., fencing, track and field, swimming). After agreeing on our sampling criteria, we contacted an organisation that supports talent development in Denmark. The organisations acted as a gatekeeper and created the link to several sports (e.g., football, fencing, taekwondo, MTB), which matched the criteria.²⁶ We then met with four coaches who worked with high level youth athletes from four different sports. Following these meetings, we agreed to collaborate with two of them based on the sampling criteria. We sought consent from the participating coaches and the coaches’ athletes since the researchers would be present during training sessions and conducting observations of the daily practices.

Participants

We purposively sampled the two high-level coaches (both men) for this study.²⁷ Both coaches had a basic understanding of sport psychology from participating in previous coach education. First, Coach 1 was the head coach in a fencing club and the Danish national team. Coach 1 coached both youth and senior elite athletes; yet, for the present study we focused on his coaching of U-20 fencers. Also, Coach 1 is educated as a school teacher, had more than twenty years of coaching experience and has completed the highest Danish coaching degree.²⁸ Fencing is a small sport in Denmark, with approximately 1500 active fencers.²⁹ Coach 2 was the head coach of a U-19 men’s football team. He held a UEFA A-coaching license and was also the Head of Talent in a football academy holding a Danish Football Association B-License.³⁰ Football is the sport with most participants in Denmark with 329,922 in 2018.³¹

Action research procedure

We established a six-month action research protocol. The protocol included a two-month reconnaissance phase and a one-month planning phase before three action research cycles each lasting one month. The cycles follow the recommendations from Gilbourne and Richardson.³² The coach education programme intended to develop the coaches’ theoretical knowledge and practical competencies in delivering psychological skills training.

Reconnaissance phase

We started the reconnaissance phase after agreeing on the collaboration with the two coaches. Here, we focused on gaining an understanding of the environments, the culture, and what the coaches thought was the key area for their development. We carried out three meetings with each coach lasting around one hour. These meetings were designed to allow the coaches to participate in the design of the change strategies, thus grounding the development programme in the data.³³

The first meeting focused on empowering the participants by clarifying that they were in charge of deciding the subject and themes for the coach education.³⁴ Doing so entailed starting with a blank slate,³⁵ and letting the coaches decide what their critical areas of development were. Allowing the coaches to influence the aim and content of the programme is in line with axiology of the participative epistemology. Doing so helped us uncover what is intrinsically meaningful to the coaches.³⁶ The specific desire was to gain competencies in delivering psychological skills training through their coaching. We then conferred with the available research^2,10,13 to guide us in designing a programme aiming to develop the coaches’ theoretical and practical competencies.

In the second meeting, we briefly outlined the concept of Psychological Competencies for Developing Excellence (PCDE^37,38) We chose the PCDE framework since the coaches highlighted the importance of a development focus rather than a performance focus. Also, the idea behind the PCDEs prompted a focus on tailored interventions to youth athletes.³⁹ Hereafter we used a performance profile⁴⁰ to understand which PCDEs they deemed as the most vital for their athletes. We then compared to the two performance profiles and chose three competencies to focus on: belief can excel (i.e., confidence and self-belief), distraction and focus control (i.e., focus on relevant cues and distraction control), and realistic performance evaluations.³⁸

The third meeting focused on gaining an understanding of the environment, the culture, and the current working practices of the two coaches. This meeting was a semi-structured interview.⁴¹ We framed the questions (see Appendix 1) based on research into holistic ecological approach,⁴² organisational culture,⁴³ and the coaching philosophy.⁶

Change strategies and implementation

The design phase lasted one month, and here we developed a booklet for the coaches covering the three workshop themes. We included the essential theory and principles of each PCDE as well as a range of coaching strategies. The booklets were reviewed by the third author and amended based on her feedback. The design phase also focused on developing three workshops, each covering one of the three competencies decided by the participants (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Overview of workshop themes and content.

Theme	Primary theory	Key characteristics	Sample strategies
Belief can excel	Self-efficacy^47,48	Belief in own abilitiesConfidence during adversity	Peer to peer feedbackGoal setting in practiceRole modelling
Distraction and focus control	AcceptanceCommitmentTraining⁴⁹	The ability to focus on task-specific stimuliHandling distractions	Simulation of competitionsDeveloping competition routinesIdentifying distractions
Realistic performance evaluations	Achievement-Goal Theory^8,50	Realistic and precise competition evaluationsBeing realistic of strengths and weaknesses	Performance profilingRun and talk evaluations after practice

Each action cycle lasted four weeks. We carried out the workshops in the clubs with each coach individually during the first week of the action cycle. Then, it was followed by three weeks, where we asked the coaches to implement the knowledge and skills they had learned. The first and second author were both present with the coaches at the workshop, which was the main source of training. Further, the first and second author also attended training at least twice a week to support the implementation (e.g., recap the workshop content and show how to use strategies) and carry out observations. Each workshop lasted 90 minutes and followed the structure outlined in Table 2.

Table 2.

Workshop structure.

Structure and content
Brief outline of the workshop theme (5 minutes)
Open discussion on how the coach understands the concept of the current workshop theme (10 minutes)
Presentation of fundamental theory and principles related to the theme (30 minutes)
Coach outlines key characteristics and athlete behaviours and how the coach can facilitate the opportunity for the athletes to carry out the desired behaviours (20 minutes)
Practical exercises in strategies (20 minutes)
Summary and goal setting for how the coach will implement the strategies over the following month (5 minutes)

Figure 1.

Themes and codes.

In addition, each action cycle was an opportunity to refine the implementation based on feedback from the coaches. We had a dialogue with the coaches after each observed training (i.e., four times per week). Here, we asked the coaches how the following workshop and action cycle would be better suited to their needs during the three implementation weeks. Doing so entailed making ourselves a mirror to coaches to support their self-reflection. Adopting a participative epistemology, we also asked the coaches to be mirror to us and support our self-reflection.⁴⁴ Mirroring helped both the coaches and ourselves articulate taken for granted assumptions and tacit knowledge.^45,46 From the first to the second action cycle, we changed the density of the theory to provide less foundational research and instead provide applied examples of how theory worked in practice. From the second the third cycle, we used a catalogue of the coaches’ favourite drills and games as the template and designed strategies for realistic performance evaluation around these.

Data collection strategies

We used multiple data collection strategies for capturing the events as they happened as well as the perceptions and meanings of the coaches. All data were collected in Danish and translated by the bilingual first author and subsequently checked by the second author.

Observations

The first and second author carried out extensive observations of each coach (total 200 h) during the three-month implementation phase of the coach education programme. Both authors assumed the role of a participant as an observer.⁵¹ Assuming this role allowed us to engage with the coaches and athletes as well as allowing us to be curious and ask questions about the activities in the club and the use of strategies from the workshops.⁵²

The observations happened during daily life in the clubs and followed training sessions, informal activities, and team/athlete meetings. We compared notes and observations the day after carrying out the observations to discuss the data. Following recommendations from Krane and Baird,⁵³ we structured the observation guide to focus on drawing together a portrait of how the coaches used the knowledge and strategies from the workshops (e.g., did the coach use any knowledge or strategies from the workshops). We also focused on the barriers or dilemmas that might emerge (e.g., did the coach experience any challenges using strategies from the workshops?).

We captured our observation notes on our smartphones since this was an accepted practice in both clubs. Athletes and coaches were trusted to use their phones responsibly and to not let it influence their training. Using smartphones was also suggested by the coaches since they argued it would make us less intrusive than sitting with notepads or notebooks.

Semi-structured interviews

Both coaches participated in three individual, semi-structured interviews (duration between 1 h 15 minutes and 2 h 23 minutes), which were framed by recommendations from Brinkmann and Kvale.⁴¹ We carried out the first interview during the reconnaissance phase. Here, we focused on gaining an understanding of the environments and cultures the coaches were working in (see the section detailing the reconnaissance).

The second round of interviews occurred the week after we ended the coach education programme. Here, we focused on the coaches’ direct experience of the programme (e.g., how has this programme influenced your coaching?) and the challenges they faced over the three months (e.g., did the programme run as you expected or did you experience dilemmas/challenges?).

The third round of interviews was conducted three months after the end of the programme to probe the coaches’ reflections on the programme (e.g., has your perception of the programme changed since we last spoke? How do you perceive the programme now?). The last interviews also helped to uncover whether the programme had any long-term influence on their coaching practice (e.g., are you still using the knowledge or strategies from the projects?).

Focus-group discussion

We invited the two coaches to a focus-group discussion (120 minutes) after the last interviews.⁵⁴ The participative epistemology framed the discussion. We used a few overarching prompts to discuss how the coaches experienced the programme (e.g., how did you experience the programme? Tell us about your experience and whether it has influenced you, and if so, how?). The focus group also included prompts regarding what challenges they may have encountered (e.g., did you experience any challenges and what were they?). We also aimed to present the initial analysis to the coaches and allow them to reflect on the codes and categories (see the section on analysis and rigour⁵⁵).

Data analysis and rigour

We analysed the data in two separate rounds. First, we analysed the data from the reconnaissance during the design phase to inform the development of the booklet and workshops. Second, we analysed the data from the second interview to gain an understanding of the coaches’ experiences from the beginning to the end of the education programme.

We followed the steps of an inductive thematic content analysis as outlined by Côté, Salmela, Baria, and Russel⁵⁶ in both rounds of analysis. The first and second authors initially open coded the data independently and created inductive categories grouping similar meaning units.⁵⁶ The second step of the analysis was to bring the two independent analyses together and use researcher triangulation to compare the codes and to address possible issues of confirmation biases.⁵⁷ Researcher triangulation also allowed the researchers to address rivalling analytical conclusions. The last phase involved grouping the categories in themes.⁵⁶ Adopting a participative epistemology meant that we presented the early findings (i.e., emerging codes and categories) to the coaches. Doing so, allowed them to reflect on the findings during the focus-group interview.⁵⁵ Doing so allowed us to explore contradictions and challenges with the participants.

Findings

The present findings cover a subset of the data from the research study. We focus on the challenges that emerged during the research. Our analysis revealed three overarching themes, which captured many of the challenges the coaches faced. The themes were: (i) scepticism towards sports psychology, (ii) exploitative coach-athlete relationships, and (iii) the boundaries between being a coach or a sport psychologist (See Figure 1). The two latter themes deal with the ethical dilemmas the coached faced.

Scepticism towards sport psychology

It became apparent early in the process that both coaches shared a scepticism towards sport psychology. For Coach 1, one of the reasons was the high monetary costs associated with employing a sport psychologist and his perception of the poor return of the investment.

It is an expensive matter. A sport psychologist. And I think that is a big hurdle for me. We had one of our fencers work with a sport psychologist, but it cost an arm and a leg. Adding insult to injury was that he had several sessions with the sport psychologist and then came back doing some new things that just didn’t work at all. A young kid who must count every penny five times before spending it, and then it has an adverse effect. It is definitely a reason we do not prioritise it (Coach 1)

Coach 1 percieved the experience described in the quote as an expensive lesson. Coach 2 explained another feature of the perceived disconnect: ‘It’s because we’re in a results-based world. We need to see that it [sport psychology] works’ (Coach 2). Another area of scepticism was the sport psychologist's understanding of the sport and context in which their athletes lived. Coach 2 explained that his experience with sport psychology in the past involved sessions ‘off the field’, which were perceived to have little relevance: ‘It’s often something like a two-hour presentation after practice, once a week, for a few weeks. And that's just a bit much for the players to take in and gain anything from’ (Coach 2). Altogether, we found that both coaches’ scepticism in part emerged from their past experiences of sport psychology delivery to their athletes.

Another feature influencing their scepticism towards sport psychology was coaches’ experiences with coach education. Coach 1 and Coach 2 had both attended sessions on sport psychology as a part of their coach education before participating in the current study. However, they explained that the courses had left them sceptical of the area, as explained by the quote:

So far, my experience is that sport psychology has a heavy feel to it. It has been presented as something where you’re lying on a chaise longue with some warm light around you. Then there is a guy asking you about your relationship with your mother. I think it is important to jazz it up a bit and tailor it to the modern Danish teen (Coach 1)

The quote explains how the coaches’ opinion was that sport psychology often became very far-fetched and academic as well as having little connection to the real world of sports.

It became clear that the coaches’ past experiences were a barrier to engaging in the programme. The lack of motivation was apparent regarding reading condensed theoretical experts, as highlighted in the quote below:

Well, the theory… I know that you are only giving us little—but I must admit that I flipped past it… I mean, you could have written anything from Walt Disney to Bourdieu, and I probably wouldn’t care (Coach 1)

Coach 1’s quote exemplifies how both coaches felt about the theory sections of the coach development programme. For their practice, both would prefer less theory and more practical work although they recognised the benefit of short theory sessions. Here, explained by Coach 1: ‘I think that if it becomes this mammoth [of theory], then it becomes incomprehensible and then I’ll spend more energy on getting away from it rather than taking it in’ (Coach 1). Likewise, Coach 2 explained: ‘I just need a little bit of theory. Just enough to put it into perspective. And then I need to see how it works in practice. Like if I do this, my players will react in this way’ (Coach 2). Although both had their reservations due to their previous experiences, they did reaffirm their perception that sport psychology could be beneficial to better develop their athletes in and outside the world of sports.

Exploitative coach-athlete relationships

During the second cycle, Coach 2 raised a challenge with a player on his team whom he perceived to be performing below his usual level. Coach 2 explained that in their league there was no room for ‘slip-ups’ and that he was reluctant to take any chances vis-à-vis fielding the best team on the weekend. The excerpt below explains the challenges:

[Coach 2] has explained that he used some of the coaching¹ techniques to address [the player]’s current challenges on the field. [Coach 2] argued that it seemed to be psychological challenges rather than technical or physical. [Coach 2] also explained that if [the player] kept underperforming he would have to take the next step and deselect him. It seems like using narrative coaching allowed him to probe some potential underlying issues. However, it is concerning that the sharing from the player might influence selection. (Observational data)

As illustrated in the excerpt, Coach 2 used techniques from the coach education programme to have a conversation with a player about his recent performances. The excerpt also shows that the player had shared some personal challenges, which Coach 2 had interpreted as underlying issues for the dip in performance.

Both coaches argued that players and athletes often would approach them with personal challenges. Coach 2 described how the coaches in the club often were the first people the players would approach with personal issues (e.g., schoolwork, problems at home). The view from both coaches was that their athletes’ and players’ reasoning to approach them with their challenges relied on a deep personal coach-player relationship and trust. However, the observational data regarding the under-performing player showed how Coach 2 argued that he might find himself over-analysing specific issues and deselect a player because he did not want to jeopardise the team’s chances of winning. Yet, using personal information against an athlete can be a potential breach of trust with a player. Such a breach of trust could lead to a deterioration of the player-coach relationship. It might also create the conditions for a exploitative relationship between the coaches and the athletes.

Both coaches also reflected on how to maintain non-exploitative relationships with their athletes. Coach 2 mentioned that learning more about sport psychology influenced how he interpreted the otherwise normal conversation with his players:

I think it is essential that it does not overlap with supporting the players like we usually do. We talk to the players about school and how they are doing. But if you start blurring that conversation with sport psychology, it might become a problem (Coach 2)

Further, Coach 1 reflected on the boundaries of his role: ‘You know, I think I must be careful of making myself the mental skills coach. At a certain point, it becomes critical to know when to send an athlete on [to a sport psychologist]’ (Coach 1). Both coaches were concerned that they might start to blur their regular conversations and team management with sport psychology and thus over-analyse the usual stressors of high-level youth sport.

An ethical dilemma of the boundaries between being coach or sport psychologist

We found that the coaches started to experience challenges, which arose from the short theory sessions in the workshops and the coaches’ cumulative knowledge of sport psychology. Both coaches explained that they had already received education in sport psychology. The education had been part of previous coach education courses, which also included subjects such as physiology, injury rehabilitation, and biomechanics. We found that the coaches experienced challenges of knowing the boundaries of their competencies in all of these subjects. As explained in the quote below:

It is important that I don't get an unrealistic view of my competencies. Like, ‘wow I’m ace at this now—look at me go’. And then I start to take on some cases that I shouldn’t. That worries me. It is also regarding anatomy and physiology. The lines start to wash away. The lines between being a coach, a physio, and so on. I like clear lines for when experts take over (Coach 1)

Towards the end of the present programme, both coaches explained that they experienced growing issues of role clarity as they developed more knowledge and competencies in the field of sport psychology. They also explained that—in retrospect—the coach education programme had lacked information on role clarity at the second and third interviews.

We found that both coaches benefited from ‘faglig understøttelse’ which translates to domain-specific professional support. The term refers to how specialised staff (e.g., physiotherapist or strength and conditioning coach) provides support in their fields of expertise. Supporting coaches with such expertise can help coaches navigate issues and challenges. The coaches explained that they had faced difficulties before when supporting athlete’ injury rehabilitation (i.e., acting as a physiotherapist) or taking on the responsibilities of a strength and conditioning coach. To resolve these issues both coaches had included strength and conditioning coaches and physiotherapists in their current support staff. We found that having a strength and condition coach and/or physiotherapist in their support staff was perceived as critical support. The professional support from e.g., a physiotherapist helped the coaches navigate the boundary between being a coach and overreaching beyond their competencies into issues such as injury rehabilitation.

In contrast, the coaches did not have similar sport psychology support in the clubs before the study. Not having sport psychologist as a part of their support staff was mainly due to the reasons given in the section on scepticism towards sport psychology. Nevertheless, both coaches argued that it was beneficial to participate in the coach education programme since it allowed them to discuss certain cases. Neither club employed sport psychologist in the three months after the end of the study. Coach 2 explained:

It would be great to have one or two sport psychologists who followed the coaches and the teams. They [i.e., sport psychologists] could have conversations with the coaches to address issues and challenges. But it is a financial challenge when we’re already missing half a million in our budget. (Coach 2)

The argument from the coaches was that having sport psychologists on staff would enable them to provide psychological skills training with greater confidence. The confidence would possibly come from better understanding of ethical boundaries through frequent discussions and professional support from the sport psychologists. However, the financial burden coupled with their scepticism towards the utility of a sport psychologist meant that they were reluctant to invest in a permanent sport psychologist. They, therefore, argued that coach education should cover the ethical boundaries and issues they might face when delivering psychological skills training.

Discussion

The current study examined how two high-level coaches in fencing and football perceived the challenges that emerged during a three-month coach education programme aimed at them delivering psychological skills training to athletes. Here, we found that the coaches’ previous experiences with sport psychology shaped a scepticism towards the programme. The main reasons given were that sport psychology often came across as ‘too academic’, farfetched from the real world of sports, and with little proven positive results.

The keystone finding was that the coaches experienced ethical dilemmas as they added theoretical and practical skills for delivering psychological skills training. The dilemma arose during a perceived blurring of the boundaries between their obligations as coaches and the use of sport psychology provisions. The coaches argued that it was increasingly vital to provide them with ethical guidance as they progressed in their learning. Further, although upskilling coaches in the realm of sport psychology might seem like a promising idea; it might also create the conditions for a potentially exploitative coach-athlete relationship. We also found that domain-specific professional support could be a critical role for sport psychologist in the future.

Resarch into providing training for coaches to deliver psychological skills training, lifeskills development, or PYD tend to focus on the positives of doing so. We found that some of the arguments other researchers have used for doing so were also present in the current study. These were that the coaches were close to the athletes,⁷ knew the sporting context well,¹⁷ had expert power,⁵⁸ and had supported the athletes in the past.¹ In the current study, however, we focused on the often overlook potential pitfalls and negatives. Our focused analysis showed that there were a range of ethical dilemmas, which coaches and practitioners with coach development and sport psychology must consider.

Ethical dilemmas

The findings challenge the unencumbered, positives of having coaches work with psychological skills in youth sport. We showed that working with sport psychology as a coach is not entirely without issues. Both coaches were initially enthusiastic about the prospect of delivering psychological skills training. Their enthusiasm is in line with previous research suggesting that many coaches recognise the importance of developing psychological competencies alongside sporting competencies.⁵⁹ Nevertheless, as we have seen in this study, delivering psychological skills blurred the boundaries between being a coach and being a sport psychology practitioner.

Both coaches pointed out that they struggled to distinguish the boundaries between being a coach and a sport psychology practitioner. Jones, Evens, and Mullen¹⁷ support this finding by describing how an individual assuming multiple roles in a sports club struggled with defining the boundaries between roles. As a coach, it is, therefore, critical to know the limitations of working with the psychological competencies of athletes. Watson and Clement⁶⁰ argued that coaches should recognise that some issues require specialised practitioners. We suggest that it is critical to focus on the ethical issues of sport psychology in coach education to help the coaches from over-reaching beyond their competencies.

Another ethical dilemma found in the current study was associated with issues vis-à-vis the coach-athletes trust relationship. Coaches are often the first person that athletes approach for advice, guidance, or support when they encounter challenges in a sporting context.⁶¹ For this reason, a central ethical concern is that both the coach and the athlete may experience how excessive openness can create dilemmas for both parties.⁶⁰ From Anderson and Kitchener,⁶² we see that psychologist-client relationships often experience negative ethical issues when they also share a supervisory or evaluative relationship. The reason given is that the psychologist/supervisor can use confidential or privileged knowledge against the client.⁶²

We found similar dilemmas of trust in the present study. Here, one of the coaches highlighted that he might be reluctant to select a player based on the coach’s psychological evaluation of the player. The coach argued that this issue could breach coach-player trust. Trust might be particularly relevant in the case of sport because supporters of coaches delivering psychological skills suggest that the existing coach-athlete trust makes it a favourable avenue.^15,16 Using knowledge about a player, which has been elicited in confidence, to select or deselect athletes could lead to abusing the trust in the coach-athlete relationship.⁶⁰

Proponents of coaches delivering psychological skills training to athletes argue that is a justifiable and natural part of the coach’s role.¹³ Arguing that it is unequivocally positive could be a fallacy. The lack of critical reflections of the potential pitfalls of coaches delivering psychological skills is concerning. Recent examples of coaches abusing the trust relationships with athletes from the United Kingdom²² and the United States of America⁶³ suggest that there may dark sides to coaching, which researchers must take serious.²⁶ Future research should, therefore, expand on the potential negative or dark sides of coaches delivering psychological skills.

Applied recommendations for coaches working with psychological skills

The key recommendation from the present study is that coaches who deliver psychological skills training should collaborate with a sport psychologist who can provide domain-specific professional support. A sport psychologist can provide feedback on the appropriate delivery of psychological skills training.¹⁷ The findings showed tensions regarding the coaches wanting ‘answers’ whilst we tried to provide education to allow the coaches to solve problems themselves. Sport psychology practiotioners should, therefore, allocated time to assess the underlying and often tacit wishes from coaches.

Receiving sport psychology support might be critical for coaches because it may provide moral, psychological, emotional, and intellectual support.¹⁷ Domain-specific professional support to coaches could help coaches navigate ethical dilemmas and ensure that athletes are not exploited, abused, and neglected. Further, coaches might already have well-established roles in a club. Watson II and Clement⁶⁰ suggested that adding additional areas of responsibilities could make it harder to differentiate between the different roles. Also, taking on an extra workload may result in less time for primary tasks. Less time might impair the quality of work in one or more areas.⁶⁰

Strengths and limitations

A strength of the current study is that it focused on examining the issues and challenges that arose while the coaches were developing competencies in delivering psychological skills training. Using action research allowed us to grasp the process of how the issues arose in real-time. Adding both retrospective interviews and a focus group to discuss the findings helped provide rigorous, meaningful insights. The findings reinforce it as a suitable method for understanding issues that may arise during a development process.⁶⁴

A central tenant of action research is also to be transparent about the limitations methodological choices create.⁶⁵ Kock⁶⁶ suggests that there are three threats to action research: uncontrollability, contingency, and subjectivity. In the current study, we asked the coaches to set the target for the action research, thus stepping into the uncontrollability threat. Relinquishing unilateral control over a research study is well documented as a potential concern when establishing alliances with the participants.⁶⁷ However, Gergen⁶⁴ argues that it might be necessary to empower participants to engage in the research process if academics want to have a real-world impact.

Concluding thoughts

The findings in the present study highlighted that there may be ethical dilemmas and issues for coaches who deliver psychological skills training. Although there are many positives highlighted in the literature, both coaches, sport psychologists, and researchers should take heed of the possible complications offered in the present article. The key finding in the present article is the suggestion that domain-specific professional support from a sport psychologist could be critical for coaches in navigating ethical dilemmas. Future research should go beyond the current study and examine perceived pitfalls in a larger sample size with more diversity, both across gender, age of athletes, race, and nationality. Future research should also examine the role of the sport psychologist as it relates to domain-specific professional support.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Niels Boysen Feddersen

Note

References

Storm

Henriksen

Larsen

, et al. Influential relationships as contexts of learning and becoming elite: athletes’ retrospective interpretations. Int J Sport Sci Coach 2014; 9:1341–1356.

Paquette

and Sullivan

Canadian curling coaches’ use of psychological skills training. Sport Psychol 2012; 26:29–42.

Gould

and Carson

Life skills development through sport: current status and future directions. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2008; 1:58–78.

Harwood

Barker

and Anderson

Psychosocial development in youth soccer players: assessing the effectiveness of the 5Cs intervention program. Sport Psychol 2015; 29:319–334.

Gould

Damarjian

and Medbery

An examination of mental skills training in junior tennis coaches. Sport Psychol 1999; 13:127–142.

Camiré

Trudel

and Forneris

Coaching and transferring life skills: philosophies and strategies used by model high school coaches. Sport Psychol 2012; 26:243–260.

Conroy

and Coatsworth

JD.

Coach training as a strategy for promoting youth social development. Sport Psychol 2006; 20:128–144.

Smoll

Smith

and Cumming

SP.

Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on changes in young athletes’ achievement goal orientations. J Clin Sport Psychol 2007; 1:23–46.

Camiré

Forneris

Trudel

, et al. Strategies for helping coaches facilitate positive youth development through sport. J Sport Psychol Action 2011; 2:92–99.

10.

Harwood

CG.

Developmental consulting in a professional football academy: the 5Cs Coaching Efficacy Program. Sport Psychol 2008; 22:109–133.

11.

Holt

Neely

Slater

, et al. A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2017; 10:1–49.

12.

Diment

GM.

Mental skills training in soccer: a drill-based approach. J Sport Psychol Action 2014; 5:14–27.

13.

Camiré

and Trudel

Helping youth sport coaches integrate psychological skills in their coaching practice. Qual Res Sport Exerc Heal 2014; 6:617–634.

14.

Gould

Collins

Lauer

, et al. Coaching life skills through football: a study of award winning high school coaches. J Appl Sport Psychol 2007; 19:16–37.

15.

Buceta

JM.

The sport psychologist/athletic coach dual role: advantages, difficulties, and ethical considerations. J Appl Sport Psychol 1993; 5:64–77.

16.

Smith

The coach as sport psychologist: an alternate view. J Appl Sport Psychol 1992; 4:56–62.

17.

Jones

Evans

and Mullen

Multiple roles in an applied setting: trainee sport psychologist, coach, and researcher. Sport Psychol 2007; 21:210–226.

18.

Ellickson

and Brown

DR.

Ethical considerations in dual relationships: the sport psychologist-coach. J Appl Sport Psychol 1990; 2:186–190.

19.

Burke

and Johnson

JJ.

The sport psychologist-coach dual role position: a rebuttal to Ellickson and Brown. J Appl Sport Psychol 1992; 4:51–55.

20.

Camiré

Trudel

and Forneris

Examining how model youth sport coaches learn to facilitate positive youth development. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2012; 19:1–17.

21.

Mountjoy

‘ Only by speaking out can we create lasting change’: what can we learn from the Dr Larry Nassar tragedy? Br J Sports Med 2019; 53:57–60.

22.

Grey-Thompson

Duty of care in sport review, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61 0130/Duty_of_Care_Review_-_April_2017 2.pdf (accessed 28 October 2018).

23.

Heron

and Reason

The practice of co-operative inquiry: research “with” people rather than “on” people. In: Reason

and Bradbury

(eds) The handbook of action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006, pp. 144–154.

24.

Løgstrup

KE.

The ethical demand. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997, 300 pp.

25.

Sparkes

and Smith

Getting started with some pre-study tasks. In: Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014, pp. 60–83.

26.

Löfman

Pelkonen

and Pietilä

A-M.

Ethical issues in participatory action research. Scand J Caring Sci 2004; 18:333–340.

27.

Sparkes

and Smith

Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014.

28.

Danmarks Idrætsforbund

Idrættens Træner Akademi: DIF og Team Danmarks elitetræneruddannelse 2019-2020. Brøndby: Denmark, 2019.

29.

DIF. DIF – Medlemstal, https://www.dif.dk/da/politik/vi-er/medlemstal (2015, 20 June 2016).

30.

Dansk Boldspil Union. DBÚs Klublicenssystem, Manual For Ungdom Drenge sæson 2015/2016, http://www.dbu.dk/∼/media/files/dbu_broendby/klublicenssystem_ungdom/klubli censsystem ungdom_drenge_2015-2016_final.pdf (2015, accessed 4 September 2020).

31.

Dansk Boldspil Union. Medlemstal, https://www.dbu.dk/om-dbu/medlemstal/ (2018, 18 February 2020).

32.

Gilbourne

and Richardson

A practitioner-focused approach to the provision of psychological support in soccer: adopting action research themes and processes. J Sports Sci 2005; 23:651–658.

33.

Kildedal

and Laursen

Professionsudvikling - udvikling af professionel praksis gennem aktionsforskning. In: Duus

Husted

Kildedal

, et al. (eds) Aktions Forskning En Grundbog. 1. udgave. Denmark: Samfundslitteratur, 2014, pp.81–96.

34.

Duus

Husted

Kildedal

, et al. (eds) Aktionsforskning- En grundbog. 1. udgave. Frederiksberg C, Danmark: Samfundslitteratur, 2014.

35.

Mannion

and Davies

Culture in health care organizations. In: Ferlie

Montgomery

and Pedersen

(eds) The Oxford handbook of health care management. 1st ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 98–116.

36.

Heron

Co-operative inquiry: research into the human condition. 1st ed. London, UK: Sage, 1996.

37.

Macnamara

Button

and Collins

The role of psychological characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance part 1: identifying mental skills and behaviors. Sport Psychol 2010; 24:52–73.

38.

Macnamara

Button

and Collins

The role of psychological characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance part 2: examining environmental and stage-related differences in skills and behaviors. Sport Psychol 2010; 24:74–96.

39.

Larsen

Henriksen

Alfermann

, et al. Preparing footballers for the next step : an intervention program from an ecological perspective. Sport Psychol 2014; 28:91–102.

40.

Jones

The role of performance profiling in cognitive behavioral interventions in sport. Sport Psychol 1993;(1992):160–172.

41.

Brinkmann

and Kvale

Doing interviews. 2nd ed. London: Sage, 2018.

42.

Henriksen

Stambulova

and Roessler

KK.

Holistic approach to athletic talent development environments: a successful sailing milieu. Psychol Sport Exerc 2010; 11:212–222.

43.

Maitland

Hills

and Rhind

DJ.

Organisational culture in sport – a systematic review. Sport Manag Rev 2015; 18:501–516.

44.

Laursen

Aktionsforskningens produktion af viden. In: Duus

Husted

Kildedal

, et al. (eds). Aktions Forskning En Grundbog. Denmark: Samfundslitteratur, 2014, pp. 97–112.

45.

Bonder

Martin

and Miracle

AW.

Culture emergent in occupation. Am J Occup Ther 2004; 58(2):159–168.

46.

Costa

and Kallick

Through the lens of a critical friend. Educ Leadersh 1993; 51:49–51.

47.

Bandura

Self-efficacy, the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co, 1997.

48.

Feltz

Short

and Sullivan

Self-efficacy in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.

49.

Gardner

and Moore

ZE.

A mindfullness-acceptance-commitment-based approach to athletic performance enhancement: theoretical considerations. Behav Ther 2004; 35:707–723.

50.

Roberts

Treasure

and Conroy

DE.

Understanding the dynamics of motivation in sport and physical activity: an achievement goal interpretation. In: Tenenbaum

and Eklund

(eds) Handbook of sport psychology. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2007, pp. 3–30.

51.

Sparkes

and Smith

Data collection. In: Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014, pp. 83–114. [AQ: Please provide the editor names in ref. 51.]

52.

Ottesen

LS.

Observationsstudier i idrætsfeltet. In: Thing

and Ottesen

(eds). Metoder i idræts- og fysioterapiforskning. 2nd ed. Købehavn: Munksgaard, Danmark, 2015, pp. 120–138.

53.

Krane

and Baird

SM.

Using ethnography in applied sport psychology. J Appl Sport Psychol 2005; 17:87–107.

54.

Kitzinger

Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995; 311:299.

55.

Smith

and McGannon

KR.

Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2018; 11:101–121.

56.

Côté

Salmela

Baria

, et al. Organizing and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. Sport Psychol 1993; 7:127–137.

57.

Creswell

(ed). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2013.

58.

Lyngstad

Legitimate, expert and referent power in physical education. Sport Educ Soc 2017; 22:932–942.

59.

Callow

Roberts

Bringer

, et al. Coach education related to the delivery of imagery: two interventions. Sport Psychol 2010; 24:277–299.

60.

Watson

II JC

and Clement

Ethical and practical issues related to multiple role relationships in sport psychology. Athl Insight Online J Sport Psychol 2008; 10:1–12.

61.

Thelwell

Greenlees

Weston

, et al. Using psychological skills training to develop soccer performance. J Appl Sport Psychol 2006; 18:254–270.

62.

Anderson

and Kitchener

KS.

Nonromantic, nonsexual posttherapy relationships between psychologists and former clients: an exploratory study of critical incidents. Prof Psychol Res Pract 1996; 27:59–66.

63.

Daniels

DJ.

Report to USA gymnastics on proposed policy and procedural changes for the protection of young athletes, https://usagym.org/PDFs/AboutUSA Gymnastics/ddreport_062617.pdf (accessed 28 May 2019).

64.

Gergen

KJ.

From mirroring to world-making: research as future forming. J Theory Soc Behav 2015; 45:287–310.

65.

Bradbury Huang

What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest?

Action Res 2010; 8:93–109.

66.

Kock

The three threats of action research: a discussion of methodological antidotes in the context of an information systems study. Decis Support Syst 2004; 37:265–286.

67.

Iphofen

Research ethics in ethnography/anthropology, http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/ethics- guide-ethnog-anthrop_en.pdf (2013, accessed 28 May 2019).

68.

Ryan

and Deci

EL.

Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 2000; 55:68–78.

69.

Henriksen

Diment

and Hansen

Professional philosophy: inside the delivery of sport psychology service at Team Denmark. Sport Sci Rev 2011; 1:5–21.