directly holding them in a mental and social space where they can be openly challenged or falsified ( Popper , 2011 [ 1945 ]). If coaches want to manage extreme ideas , and jump out of their ‘ tribe ’, to be an open minded and effective coach , they should look to challenge rather than confirm their ideas ( Piggott , 2015 ).
What role can research play in informing practice ?
There is considerable talk of a research-practice gap in the literature . Continuing the idea of nuance in coaching , some coaches actively use research to inform their practice , whilst others do not , for a range of reasons reflecting their own characteristics and mindsets , but also how they might access research .
In the UK there has been a significant increase in active coaches undertaking university-based coach education degrees , where research is used centrally , and , anecdotally , the feedback on this provision has been very positive . Likewise , the extent to which agency and governing body education and further development programmes draw upon research to inform what they do has increased ( e . g . North , 2009 ; North & Lyle , 2020 ). I have already noted the many commonalities in coaching domains - e . g . youth football coaching - that are usefully captured and shared by research . Research is clearly very important to stimulating reflection on existing practices and providing ideas for new ones . Sadly , published research itself , because of its format and style of messaging , is almost certainly not that valuable to most coaches . Translation of research for practice and , notably , the production of summaries , is a very important role for agencies like UK Coaching . Researchers themselves ( and I am as guilty of this as anyone ) should spend more time translating and summarising their own work .
Although I am an ardent advocate of the use of research by coaches to challenge and stimulate the latter ’ s thought , there is one fire I am particularly keen to address based on ideas first overviewed in previous work ( North , 2017 ). There is a strong sense from both researchers and practitioners that research should be driving , perhaps even determining practice . This is based on two ideas : ( 1 ) that ( academic ) researchers are in some way the primary developers , holders , and / or gatekeepers of coaching knowledge , ( 2 ) that to be effective , practitioner coaches have to strictly implement the recommendations of research . These ideas , which permeate and endure in many coaching spaces , fundamentally misrepresents the role of research and its link to practice . Research is there as a set of tools not to determine practice , but , as I have said , to inform and challenge it .
The idea that research determines practice leads to two results . First , there are some academics who believe their own hype and frequently ( mis ) judge coaches against the evidence they have generated . This leads to the false impression of continually failing coaches unable to match the ‘ standards ’ imposed by academic colleagues . Second , that coaches lose confidence that they are not meeting appropriate
29