coaching and coaching practice unfortunately remains , relatively speaking , under-researched , with the breadth of research meaning the field has not moved beyond LeUnes ’ s assessment of “ sparse , unfocussed and subjective ” ( LeUnes 2007 , p . 403 ; Lyle & Cushion , 2010 ). As a result , coaching practice and its process has received considerably less attention than other outcomes . Importantly , a cursory examination of coaching research will reveal that there are few , if any , links made between coaching practice and coaching outcomes , limited attention to intervention research , and coaching outcomes are rarely the dependent variables in such research . There is little evidence to suggest that this situation is changing .
These limitations notwithstanding , research has broadly come to acknowledge that coaching is a social activity built on a web of complex , context-dependent , and interdependent activities that come together to form a holistic process ( Lyle & Cushion , 2017 ). It is a remarkably complex , intricate yet coherent process incorporating a myriad of individual variations that each coach , player and environment add to the blend and , as previously alluded to , perhaps it is this very complexity that has resulted in little “ research that has explored the conceptual development of the coaching process ”, possibly because it is too complex to research neatly or about which to draw straightforward conclusions ( Lyle 1999 , p . 13 , Lyle & Cushion 2010 ). In other words , coaching is not linear , it is complex , and difficult to quantify . As such , there are a myriad of variables that impact coaching , and these can make
‘ measuring ’ it problematic . Despite this , the tendency in research has been to treat complex issues in coaching ( e . g . practice , learning , knowledge , delivery , curriculum ) as solvable by a narrow focus on quick-fix ‘ drive-by ’ data that is collected as a one off , with coaching assumed as unproblematic and as a generic identifiable phenomenon . As a result , there has been scant systematic research on improvements in coaching practice or on athlete outcomes . Also , coaching research by and large remains mostly descriptive in nature and offers little in the way of ‘ why ’, whilst having even less to say about the complex relations between , and influence of , coaching , coaches , athletes , and contexts . Hence , this is a significant reason why coaching values , beliefs and practice have remained largely unchanged by the findings of coaching research over the last thirty-five years .
Coaching Research – integrating theory
Coaching always has , as Rink ( 2001 ) contends , its “ roots in particular theory ” ( p . 112 ). Theoretical perspectives and perceptions of coaching together will impact approaches to researching it . To a large extent , coaching research is dependent on , and characterised by , design , and ultimately how we conduct research is hostage to our understanding , perspectives , and theories ( Lyle & Cushion , 2010 ; Cushion 2007b ). For example , as Cushion and Nelson ( 2013 ) point out , research methodology will likely be different if one assumes that coaching is stable , consistent , and identical across and between contexts , with the aim of generating best practice models . As opposed to an assumption that
9