context , continually attempting to make improvements ( North , 2017 ).
Negotiating the ‘ Twitter™ storm ’: How can coaches navigate public heated discussion about coaching practice ?
In recent years , so I am told , there have been some recurrent and occasionally heated discussion on Twitter about how coaches , notably in team invasion sports ( football , rugby , hockey etc .), most effectively structure practice activities . There are , I understand , two sides to the debate : ( 1 ) those who advocate free play , unstructured games , or constrained ‘ tactical ’ games , with the burden of learning falling on the athlete through largely embodied non-cognitive , perception-action catalysed , ‘ self-organisation ’. Then ( 2 ), those who recognised the value of 1 but also recognise the value of more structured ‘ technical ’ and other drills / games that place a greater emphasis on athlete conscious cognition and coach instruction / feedback – with the tool chosen for the task by the coach . Note : no one , or very few , seem to advocate just technical drill / instructional approach .
I use this as just one example to explore how coaches may negotiate such heated discussion . The picture I have tried to describe in the previous section is of some coaches , very open to new ideas from a variety of sources , thinking them through and then pragmatically and intelligently applying and testing them in context , to see what they can learn and use effectively in the future . These coaches will observe , chat with others in their context including players and coaches , and undertake wider reading and conversations , to refine their thinking and their views . They appreciate that with coaching the ultimate test of any ( new ) idea is not whether it works or not - as if there is a definite answer - but when does it work , in what context , for whom , and for what reasons ( North , 2016 ).
Alternatively , there will be those coaches - for various reasons that we have explored , and some we have not ( e . g . history , genes , memes , convenience , intransigence , politics ) who ‘ get behind ’ an idea and stick with it irrespective of the evidence before their eyes , or in exploring and giving credence to the comments of others . The latter ‘ tribal thinking ’ is something of a common wider social malaise ( Haidt , 2012 ). There are an increasing number of explorations and remedies for this which often place the burden on the already open minded – empathy , listening to understand etc . ( Aikin & Talisse , 2020 ; Greene , 2013 ). But there is also a burden , or perhaps more positively an opportunity , for those who find themselves committed to particular perspectives to explore and refine their views – to embrace the nuance of coaching . I have already described a positive descriptive and normative view of coaches and coaching - interested , thoughtful , reflective and creative .
There is one more idea to add to the discussion here . Philosopher Karl Popper suggests genuine societal , practical and intellectual progress is made through not looking for ideas that confirm or verify our views , but
28