Applied Coaching Research Journal Research Journal Volume 3 | Page 35

APPLIED COACHING RESEARCH JOURNAL 2019, Vol. 3
established that coaches have a duty of care,
which is akin to that held by teachers. What is new,
however, is the view that care in sport coaching has
been taken for granted. For example, it has been
suggested that care has largely been viewed through
a minimum standards approach, which focuses on
safety (eg risk assessment) and non-malevolence
(ie not harming) (Cronin and Armour, 2018). While
safety and non-malevolence are vital, and should
always be pursued, there is a difference between
simply not harming and actually caring. Indeed, the
minimum standards approach, while essential, does
not consider the relationship between coaches and
athletes. This is remiss because Gano-Overway and
Guiverneau (2018) argue that caring relationships
are essential to develop trust, and as a means of
helping athletes excel to their full potential. Thus,
care in sport coaching is an area that is essential,
valuable and yet potentially underappreciated and
misunderstood.
To clarify what is meant by care, authors (eg Cronin
and Armour, 2018) have utilised Noddings’ (2013)
care theory. This theory describes two concepts
central to caring relationships: engrossment
and motivational displacement. The concept of
engrossment is where the carer is being attentive
and showing an interest in the other. The second
concept of motivational displacement occurs
when one (the carer) experiences ‘motivational
displacement’ as the carer’s energy and actions
flow towards serving the needs of the individual
being cared for, instead of their own. These concepts
require a carer to exhibit empathy to understand
the need of the other and compassion to act on the
other’s behalf.
athletes experience care. Indeed, without such
work, researchers run the risk of using coaches’
perspectives to decide what constitutes ‘good
care’. This may lead to paternalistic and controlling
recommendations that effectively disempower
athletes by overlooking their unique viewpoint.
Related to this, UK Sport (Grey-Thompson, 2017
p.14) have recently stressed the importance of
gaining the “unique athlete perspectives, which are
being overlooked and undervalued”. In response,
this study begins to fulfil this gap by reporting
the care experiences and preferences of female
footballers in the UK.
Why women’s football?
Women’s football in the UK appears to be enjoying
a relatively positive period of growth. Improved
performances by the senior national team at a
recent World Cup have been accompanied by: 1)
the establishment of the Women’s Super League 1;
2) the integration of high-profile men’s teams with
women’s teams (eg Manchester United Ladies);
and 3) continued increases in participation at
grass-roots levels. Thus, a new group of young
women are beginning to experience professional
football structures in the UK. That said, it is
important to note that women’s football remains a
developing activity. Media coverage, participation
and finances continues to be disproportionately
small in comparison to male football (Women in
Sport, 2015). Similarly, coaching experiences are
severely restricted in comparison to men’s football
(Lewis, Roberts and Andrews, 2018).
With a few exceptions (eg Gearity, 2012), research
on care in sport has rarely included the voice of
athletes. This is ironic, because Noddings argues
care occurs by listening to the voice of the cared
for (ie a form of engrossment), and acting on their
concerns, motives (ie motivational displacement).
Yet within much care research, the voice of the
coach has dominated (eg Jones, 2009; Knust
and Fisher, 2015; Cronin and Armour, 2018).
Therefore, there is a distinct need to consider how
The engrossment and motivational displacement
concepts have been observed in a number of
coaching studies. For example, Knust and Fisher
(2015, p. 38) studied the care provided by female
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
Division 1 head coaches. Specifically, the coaches
considered their team to be “like a family”,
suggesting that individuals should care for each
other, just like they would their families. In this
metaphor, coaches are compared to ‘parents’ who
are engrossed in serving the holistic needs of their
‘children’ (ie athletes). The perspectives of athletes
who received this care are not reported however.
35