considering ‘ coach development ’ with an increasing number of publications directly dealing with coach education , learning , and related developmental issues for coaches .
Importantly , recent scholarly and governing body developments have recognised the social character of coaching ( cf . Dempsey et al ., 2020 ). This has led to embracing so called ‘ constructivist ’ approaches to coaching . However , these considerations mostly consist of a small ‘ aura ’ of socialness , recognising social variables as the input for the process of internalisation . This means that coaching and learning are still viewed as the individualistic acquisition of the cultural given ( Cushion , 2016 ) — coaching begins and ends with the individual , with a ‘ nod ’ at the ‘ social ’ or the environment in between . Importantly , coaching effectiveness remains considered in terms of acquiring knowledge , i . e . epistemology . That is , changing knowing / knowledge ‘ structures ’ and viewing coaching as a process by which the coach internalises and applies foundational or objective knowledge ( e . g ., Côté & Trudel , 2009 ), whether discovered , transmitted from others , or experienced in interaction ( Cushion 2016 ).
Moreover , coaching , regardless of the approach to understanding it , is largely considered in terms of ‘ instrumental rationality ’. That is , the manipulation and control of the environment and prediction about observable events . Instrumental rationality means coaching reality is based on empirical knowledge , and governed by technical rules ( Cushion et al ., 2021 ; Lyle & Cushion , 2017 ). An extension of this rationality is to view coaching practice based on technical ‘ expertise ’ ( e . g . Trudel & Gilbert , 2006 ; Lyle & Cushion , 2017 ), and in terms of abstract , universal categories , such as motivation or decision-making . Theory , from this perspective , is something that is distinct from , and applied to , practice , with coaching cast as an applied ‘ coaching science ’. Consequently , coaching ’ s cultural grounding is in discourses of positivist scientific knowledges and instrumental rationality ( cf . Avner et al ., 2017 ). So , despite apparent ‘ paradigm shifts ’, coaching and coach learning is still largely understood as ‘ an individual , asocial , ahistorical process ’ ( Cushion , 2016 , p . 2 ; Cushion et al ., 2021 ). This , alongside a pervasive and dominant ‘ psychologism ’ ( Downham & Cushion , 2020 ) – thinking and approaches underpinned by psychology – remains influential in coaching practice , curricula design and coach education . Importantly , as Lyle and Cushion ( 2017 ) argue , the term ‘ coaching research ’ itself may be a misnomer , with scholars guilty of perpetuating the concept of a unified field or consensual purpose that arguably does not exist currently .
Coaching Research – setting agendas
Coaching as a research area , while still emerging , has a research agenda that has largely developed serendipitously . This is often driven by individual research interests , and cites ‘ in-vogue ’ theories or has a particular theoretical agenda ( Lyle & Cushion , 2017 ). This work frequently engages in what Jussim and Honeycutt ( 2021 ) describe as ‘ idea laundering ’, that is a process that can create the appearance of
7