Knowledge Transfer: How do High Performance Coaches Access the Knowledge of Sport Scientists?

Transcription

1 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 Number Knowledge Transfer: How do High Performance Coaches Access the Knowledge of Sport Scientists? Ian Reade, Wendy Rodgers and Nathan Hall Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, E471 Van Vliet Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H9, Canada ian.reade@ualberta.ca ABSTRACT The purpose of this research was to answer three specific questions: i) How do coaches perceive sport science research? ii) What sources do coaches consult when looking for new ideas? and iii) What barriers do coaches encounter when trying to access new information? All of the highperformance coaches involved in Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) were contacted to complete an on-line survey related to these questions. There were 205 coaches who completed at least part of the questionnaire. There was a strong consensus that the CIS coaches believe that sport science makes an important contribution to high-performance sport. Gaps exist between what coaches are looking for and the research that is being conducted, especially in the area of tactics and strategies. Coaches are most likely to consult other coaches, or attend coaching conferences to get new information. Sport scientists and their publications were ranked very low by the coaches as a likely source of sport science information. The barriers to the coaches access to sport science are the time required to find and read scientific journals, and lack of direct access to a sport scientist. Strategies to remove the barriers could include rewarding sport scientists for successful transfer of their knowledge to practice through direct communication with coaches. Key words: Coach Education, Informal Learning, Sports Science, Unmediated Learning INTRODUCTION High-performance coaches must meet the requirements and demands of high-performance athletes looking for a winning edge, which, in turn, constantly increases the level and sophistication of the knowledge the coaches are seeking as well as the challenge of finding it. We are interested in the extent to which sport science specifically contributes to that winning edge, and whether there is an effective delivery mechanism for the knowledge generated by sport scientists to the coaches who need the information. There is general agreement regarding the basic knowledge required by coaches to work effectively with athletes that is reflected in the extant literature [1-3] and in the content of Reviewers: John Williams (Australian Institute of Sport, Australia) Michael Chia (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)

2 320 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists existing formal coach education programs such as the National Coaching Certification Program [4]. There has also been discussion in the coaching literature about the ways coaches at all levels acquire knowledge, including coaches of high-performance athletes. However, it is clear that transfer of sport science to coaches remains a vexing problem for both coaches and scientists [5]. In a round table discussion of whether sport science influenced coaching practice reported by Bishop et al. [6], a working definition of sport science was that it... is concerned with providing evidence that improves sports performance (p. 1). In a recent study, Williams and Kendall [5] concluded that congruence between the perspective of elite coaches and sports science researchers in this study is encouraging (p. 1585), but suggest the environment within which the study was done (the Australian Institute of Sport) may have influenced the results. Nevertheless, a level of consultation and cooperation between coaches and researchers was evident. We believe this is a significant finding as it appears to be the first published empirical evidence of a successful relationship between high-performance coaches and sport scientists; a result that merits study in other environments A review of the sport science literature revealed a plethora of editorials and opinion papers dating back to 1980 when Burke [7] wrote Bridging the gap in sports science. Burke [7] concluded that better communication is needed between sport scientists and coaches and athletes in order for the scientists work to have any real value. This piece was published in Athletic Purchasing and Facilities. This is a domain-specific Canadian magazine; and, whereas Burke s conclusion will ring true with coaches, there has been little pursuant to this piece that has shed light on this issue. In a relatively cursory review, we found 13 such pieces published in outlets as varied as Sportstravel [8], the Scottish Rugby Union [9], Swim Magazine [10], Sports Information Bulletin [11], Coaching Director [12], Spotlight on Youth Sports [13], Track Coach [14], Skating [15] in addition to several conference abstracts from the International Association of Sports Information [16-18] and in an unpublished master s thesis [19]. Unfortunately, the majority of these attempts to address this problem are reported in conference presentations or in sport specific newsletters or magazines that are difficult to access for the majority of interested individuals. Conference presentations have a limited influence on only those who attended the presentation. Newsletters from specific sports organizations tend to have a small, often regional, target audience, and they also tend not to be stocked by larger libaries or data-bases, thus limiting longer-term access to those outside the organization. However, all of these sources demonstrate the pervasiveness of the question of how to achieve knowledge transfer to coaches around the world, across sports, and across sport-related jobs including coaches, administrators, and facilities managers. Sport science, although the target of many discussions of the knowledge-practice gap or of enhancing evidence-based practice, has apparently not focused a great deal of attention on this issue with a few notable exceptions that at least describe some of the ways coaches actively enhance their knowledge. Cushion et al. [20] aimed to pin down the nature of coaching knowledge in an effort to move beyond content knowledge that has informed coach education programs... (p. 216) and to look at coach experience in particular. Relatedly, Rodgers et al. [21] also found that coaches competitive experience was a source of knowledge that contributed to their use of coaching practices that are recommended through the National Coaching Certification Program in Canada. In another paper providing some empirical evidence, Hedrick [22] interviewed three US strength and conditioning coaches regarding where they get their new ideas and how they get the information required to fulfil their... responsibility to provide... athletes the best possible

3 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 Number training program to enhance their opportunity to achieve their performance goals (p. 48). Two of the three expert coaches interviewed by Hedrick reported that other coaches (i.e., conversations, visits, observations) was their main source, and the third reported that attending strength and conditioning conferences and clinics were his main source. Irwin et al. [23] found that high-performance gymnastics coaches rely on other coaches in their efforts to improve their knowledge and practice, and actively seek information depending upon the issue or problem encountered. These sources are consistent with Werthner and Trudel s [3] claim that experienced coaches tend to prefer unmediated learning; i.e., they prefer to seek their own information as the need arises. From the literature available, most would agree that coaches prefer to get their knowledge from other coaches. In fact, Bell [24] suggested that coaches prefer to learn almost exclusively through the mentorship of other coaches or to call upon their own personal experience as athletes. However, this does not address the question of where coaches get innovative ideas or their specific sport science information in the first place. Perhaps one of the coaches, or more likely the sport organizations, is acquiring the sport science based information and then presenting it to coaches at clinics and conferences. Is this, however, the optimal means to transfer sport science knowledge to coaches? And how or where does innovative sport science break into the recycling process of a coach to coach communication system? Cushion et al. [20] cite Cushion [25] in his critical assessment of mentoring, Mentoring in its current form, however, appears largely unstructured, informal, and uneven in terms of quality and outcome, uncritical in style, and, from the evidence, serves to reproduce the existing culture, power relations, and importantly, existing coaching practice (p. 223). It appears, then, that coachto-coach communication might include a recycling of ideas that may or may not have any evidence based in traditional scientific terms. There is a need to determine where and how sport science might contribute to coaches innovations. One group of coaches who could be assumed to have the best access to sport science information are those who are based at universities. First, to work at universities, most coaches would be required to have at least one academic degree and at institutions with particularly rigorous academic standards, they might be expected to also have a postgraduate (Master s) degree. Second, at universities, coaches probably have more access to sport science information through the library systems available to them, and possibly through being acquainted with sport scientists who are also at those universities, or by involvement in sport science research themselves. Third, because university coaches are frequently required to teach their sport to university undergraduates, they might be expected to be more current in their sport specific and sport scientific knowledge than other coaches. University coaches, then, might provide some insight into the kinds of information high-performance coaches need, where they search, what they find relevant and available, and what barriers they encounter in accessing relevant knowledge. The purpose of the present study was to examine the transfer of sport science knowledge within a nation-wide sample of Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) high-performance coaches. If it can be demonstrated that a large sample of coaches from across Canada shows similar patterns of aquiring sport science information, it will be possible to consider specific steps to address the identified research-practice gap. We wanted to answer three specific questions: 1. How do coaches perceive sport science research? 2. What sources do coaches consult when looking for new ideas? 3. What barriers do coaches encounter when trying to access new information?

4 322 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists METHOD PARTICIPANTS A survey was delivered by to a list of 380 CIS coaches. There were 205 coaches who completed at least part of the questionnaire incorporated in this study, yielding a response rate of 54%. Of these coaches 165 were male (80.5%), 38 were female (18.5%), and two did not report gender (1%). This is representative of the proportions of male and female CIS coaches according to information provide by CIS ( There were 165 coaches (80.5%) who completed the majority of the survey (more than 80% of the questions). Those who completed the survey labeled themselves as being full-time head coaches (n = 115), fulltime assistant coaches (n = 5), part-time or honorarium 1 head coaches (n = 47), or part-time or honorarium assistant coaches (n = 2). The coaches represented a variety of different interuniversity sports: basketball (n = 46), volleyball (n = 27), soccer (n = 22), ice-hockey (n = 21), swimming (n = 13), rugby (n = 9), football (Canadian) (n = 8), track and field (n = 6), cross country (n = 4), field hockey (n = 2), wrestling (n = 2), and other (n = 8). Sixty-four of the participants coached teams composed of only male athletes, 76 coached teams of only female athletes, and 28 coached teams of both male and female athletes. At their universities, some had no academic programs related to sports (such as Physical Education, Kinesiology, Sport Sciences or Life Sciences departments or faculties) (n = 40), only undergraduate programs related to sports (n = 30), and masters programs (n = 52) or PhD programs (n = 81) related to sports. Additional data regarding coaches amount of experience and education was also collected. The number of years of experience coaching high-performance athletes ranged from 0-5 years (n = 15), 5-10 years (n = 47), years (n = 36), years (n = 33), and 20+ years (n = 38). Their highest level of education completed was listed as high school (n = 6), post-secondary diploma or certificate (n = 6), University Bachelor s degree (n = 89), University Master s degree (n = 58), or University Doctorate degree (n = 9). Finally, the Coaching Association of Canada s National Coaching Certification Program ( level was reported as either Level 1 (n = 2), Level 2 (n = 14), Part A and/or Part B (n = 7), Level 3 (n = 83), Level 4 (n = 50), Level 5 (n = 6), or None (n = 5). INSTRUMENT An on-line questionnaire was utilized. The questionnaire was specifically designed by the research team for the purposes of this research and was titled New Ideas for highperformance Coaches. It was composed of 33 items designed to examine how sport research knowledge is transferred to high-performance (CIS) coaches in Canada. PROCEDURES The research was approved by a University Research Ethics Board. CIS coaches from across Canada were contacted by the research team through . In the , coaches were informed about the nature of the study and were asked to participate by completing the online questionnaire. Those individuals who decided to partake in the study completed the questionnaire at their leisure. The questionnaire was developed and administered through the use of a commercial service website. 1 An honorarium head coach is a designated head coach who receives a nominal financial gift annually for his or her contribution to the sport in question and does not receive an annual salary and who generally also does not have access to dedicated office space or other supports at their institution. By extension, an honorarium head coach usually also has an unrelated full-time job outside the university.

5 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 Number RESULTS HOW DO COACHES PERCEIVE SPORT SCIENCE RESEARCH? Based on the assumption that high-performance coaches are looking for new ideas, we asked the coaches to choose between two responses: Coaches in our sport are always looking for new ideas. or Coaches in our sport mostly look for new ideas when their athletes are not performing well. ; 72% of the respondents indicated coaches are always looking for new ideas. We also asked, Do you agree that sport research is contributing new ideas that could be used by coaches in your sport?. Over 75% of the coaches responded yes (146 of 186), only 6 coaches (3%) said no, and 34 said not sure. The next item asked the coaches: In which of the following areas of your sport do you think coaches are looking for new ideas?. Participants responded on a 9-point scale from most likely = 1 to least likely = 9. Table 1 shows the areas and the results. Coaches reported that tactics/strategies, team building, and mental training and preparation were most likely to be of interest to them. Nutrition, injury prevention/recovery, and strength training were the areas identified as least likely to be of interest. To determine whether any of the demographic variables (i.e., gender, NCCP level, years of experience, full-time vs. part-time, university programs related to sport) influenced how coaches responded to the items in Table 1, Chi-square analyses were undertaken. Some of the demographic variables that were included in the survey were not analyzed due to insufficient numbers in several of the categories (i.e., sport coached and coach education level). There was, however, no evidence indicating that any of the demographic variables were related to coaches responses in Table 1, suggesting that the types of ideas sought are idiographic and not necessarily linked to age, gender, sport or years of experience. We then asked coaches to rate their beliefs regarding contributions of sport research to new ideas in a variety of different areas (e.g., Mental training and preparation) in their sport (see Table 2). A 6-point scale was utilized. Again, Chi-square analysis revealed that strength and fitness/conditioning received a rating of yes definitely more often than any other areas, whereas the area of team practice drills was the only area to receive more ratings of unlikely and definitely not than ratings of likely and yes definitely. By comparing the results in Table 1 with the results in Table 2, we see a clear indication that the coaches believe sport research is contributing new ideas, but not necessarily in the areas they believe are of greatest interest to coaches. For the item, In your opinion, does the sport research information need to be sport specific, or are you comfortable adapting it to your own situation?, coaches selected one of two responses. Just over 40% of the coaches (n = 66 of 154 respondents) indicated that the research needs to be sport specific, and the remaining 88 coaches (57.1%) indicated that they thought they could adapt information to their needs. Another item (see Table 3) required coaches to respond to six statements about the relevance of sport science to their practice. Coaches disagreed with the statement #1, There is no sport research being conducted in my sport specifically, thus reaffirming the finding that coaches believe sport research is being conducted. However, coaches also agreed strongly with #4 that research is not easily accessible and also agreed with #2 that research is not presented in formats that can be used easily. In their responses to #5, coaches indicated they do not have access to sport researchers to solve coaching problems and in #6 indicated they do not regularly use the services of sport science researchers with their athletes. Overall, sport science does not have a strong presence in coaches regular practice although they believe some relevant research is being done. To determine whether any of the demographic variables influenced how coaches responded to the items regarding how coaches perceive sport research, Chi-square analyses

6 324 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists Table 1. Areas of Sport that Coaches are Most Likely and Least Likely to be Looking for New Ideas Area of Sport Number of Coaches % Number of Coaches % Most Likely Least Likely Tactical/strategy Mental training and preparation Team building/cohesion Fitness/conditioning Team practice drills Individual skill development Injury prevention/recovery Strength training Nutrition Total Table 2. Belief that Sport Research is Contributing New Ideas to Specific Areas of Sport Area of Sport Yes Definitely Likely Unsure Unlikely Definitely Not N/A N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) Mental training and preparation 73 (39.9) 83 (45.4) 16 (8.7) 10 (5.5) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0) Team building/cohesion 45 (24.7) 85 (46.7) 39 (21.4) 11 (6.0) 2 (1.1) 0 (0.0) Technical 45 (25.6) 51 (24.9) 26 (14.8) 42 (23.9) 10 (5.7) 2 (1.1) Team practice drills 21 (11.9) 45 (25.4) 38 (21.5) 54 (30.5) 17 (9.6) 2 (1.1) Individual skill development techniques 28 (15.6) 70 (39.1) 35 (19.6) 38 (21.2) 8 (4.5) 0 (0.0) Tactical/strategy 26 (14.9) 55 (31.4) 35 (20.0) 43 (24.6) 15 (8.6) 0 (0.0) Nutrition 70 (38.7) 83 (45.9) 21 (11.6) 3 (1.7) 3 (1.7) 1 (0.6) Strength 98 (53.8) 68 (37.4) 12 (6.6) 3 (1.6) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0) Fitness/conditioning 99 (54.4) 65 (35.7) 15 (7.3) 2 (1.1) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0) Injury prevention and recovery 72 (39.8) 79 (43.6) 20 (11.0) 7 (3.9) 3 (1.7) 0 (0.0) Understanding today s athletes 33 (16.1) 65 (36.5) 54 (30.3) 14 (7.9) 10 (5.6) 2 (1.1)

7 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 Number Table 3. Responses to Statements Regarding Sport Science Research and Researchers Statement Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly No Answer N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 1. There is no sport research being conducted in my sport specifically 6 (3.6) 37 (22.0) 50 (29.8) 64 (38.1) 11 (6.5) 2. The research is not presented in formats that can be used easily by coaches 15 (9.0) 70 (41.9) 44 (26.3) 22 (13.2) 16 (9.6) 3. The research being done is not relevant to the questions that athletes and coaches in my sport have 9 (5.4) 45 (26.9) 66 (39.5) 23 (13.8) 24 (14.4) 4. The research being done is not easily accessible to coaches 13 (7.8) 95 (57.6) 32 (19.4) 13 (7.9) 12 (7.3) 5. Coaches in my sport have access to sport researchers and sport scientists when trying to solve coaching problems 14 (8.4) 52 (31.1) 58 (34.7) 27 (16.2) 16 (9.6) 6. Coaches regularly utilize the services of sport science researchers and scientists with their athletes 3 (1.8) 37 (22.0) 67 (39.9) 46 (27.4) 15 (8.9)

8 326 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists were undertaken. There were no associations of gender or university programs to the response patterns to the items. With respect to coach experience, two significant patterns of response that are of limited importance were observed. Coaches with NCCP Levels 3 or less were more likely than their higher-level counterparts (i.e., coaches with NCCP Level 4-5) to rate themselves as unsure regarding sport research contributing new ideas in the area of technical (χ 2 (8) = 22.87, p <.01). Coaches with at least 20 years experience were more likely (30%) than coaches with less than 20 years experience (13%) to believe it is unlikely sport research is contributing new ideas in the area of team building/cohesion (χ 2 (16) = 29.26, p <.05). Of greater importance, more experienced coaches were much more likely (21%) than their less experienced counterparts (7%) to suggest that coaches in their sport do have access to sport researchers when trying to solve coaching problems, (χ 2 (16) = 28.93, p <.05). Fulltime coaches were much more likely than part-time coaches to somewhat agree (40% versus 12%, respectively), and less likely to strongly disagree (14% versus 22%, respectively) or have no answer (6% versus 18%, respectively) with the statement Coaches in my sport have access to sport researchers and sport scientists when trying to solve coaching problems (χ 2 (4) = 15.56, p <.01). Chi-square analysis (χ 2 (6) = 23.23, p <.0001) revealed that coaches at a university with a physical education or kinesiology program, especially a graduate program, were more likely to know a sport scientist personally. A total of 128 coaches said they knew a sport scientist personally. Of these, a total of 93 were from an institution with a PE or sport-related Ph.D. or Masters program compared to a total of 35 whose institution had no program (n = 12) or an undergraduate program only (n = 23). The rest (n = 35) said they did not personally know a sport scientist. A similar pattern was observed when examining whether coaches had an opportunity to actually work with a sport scientist. A total of 91 coaches (54% ) said they had the opportunity to work with a sport scientist; of these, 72 coaches from institutions with graduate programs in PE or a related area said yes whereas only 19 from institutions with undergraduate or no related program said yes. The rest (n = 74) said no. Chi-square analysis (χ 2 (6) = 24.52, p <.0001) revealed that coaches at a university with a PE or kinesiology program, especially a graduate program, are significantly more likely to have the opportunity to work with a sport scientist. In summary, full-time coaches with many years of experience were most likely to endorse sport science as useful, and those at institutions with sport-science related academic programs that also offer graduate degrees were most likely to know a sport scientist, to have opportunities to work with sport scientists, and to believe that there was sport science available. Finally, the majority of coaches indicated that they could adapt non-sport specific science to their own needs, and did not strictly require it to be completely specific to their sport. WHAT SOURCES DO COACHES CONSULT WHEN LOOKING FOR NEW IDEAS? Five items from the questionnaire were directly related to this question. The first item, How likely is it that coaches in your sport would consult the following sources when seeking new ideas?. The response format was a forced ranking 9-point scale from most likely to least likely. That is, each point on the scale could be used only once, forcing coaches to rank order the information sources. For each possible source, the number of coaches responding most likely is shown in Table 4. Coaches reported that directly contacting other coaches and attending clinics, seminars and conferences were the most likely sources of new ideas. For the second item, In what

9 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 Number format do coaches most commonly receive new sport research ideas?, coaches chose one of eight possible responses that are listed in Table 5. The most frequently endorsed response was at a seminar, clinic or presentation by a coach. Table 4. Most Likely Sources for Coaches to Consult When Looking for New ideas Number of coaches % Other coaches directly (not seminars) Clinics, seminars, conferences Videos Sport science researchers/ academics Watching elite competition live or on TV Books/magazines Published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals Trainers On-line discussions Total 164 Table 5. Format Coaches Most Commonly Receive New Sport Research Ideas Number of coaches % Seminar, clinic or presentation by a coach Seminar, clinic or presentation by sport researcher Personal conversation with another coach A summary article of the major research findings in newsletters, magazines or newspapers Other (e.g., internet, pro-camp) Personal conversation with sport researcher Personal conversation with a trainer Original full text from an academic research journal Total 170 The third item asked coaches to rate various organizations as potential sources of new ideas (see Table 6). A low percentage of coaches rated any of the listed organizations as excellent sources. High-performance centres 2 were rated as excellent more often than any other organization, although a number of organizations were considered good sources. For the fourth item, If you have an urgent question or problem related to coaching, what would you do first?, coaches again selected one response from a list of six possible responses. The most common response which was selected by almost 60% of the coaches (n = 100) was ask another coach in their sport. The second most common response was look for something relevant to read endorsed by 17.9% of the coaches. The third most common response was other (e.g., internet) endorsed by only 7.7 % of coaches. The remaining three responses ask a sport manager or administrator, ask a coach in another sport, and look for a 2 High-performance centres are Canadian Sport Centres and other sport-specific high-performance programs as recognized by the national sport organization in each sport.

10 328 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists seminar or clinic were each endorsed by fewer than 5% of the coaches. The fifth and last question was open-ended and asked coaches, What do you believe is the best way to get sport science information into the hands of coaches?. The data did not reveal any one strongly preferred format of information. The most frequent response was seminars/clinics by 18 (20%) of the respondents to this question, followed by website (17.8%); electronic mail (16.7%); newsletters (15.6%); national/provincial organizations (14.4%); sport specific publications (e.g., journals, magazines) (8.8%); and, finally, direct interaction with sports science researchers (6.7%). To determine whether any of the demographic variables for which we had sufficient data (i.e., gender, NCCP level, years of experience, full-time vs. part-time, university programs related to sport) influenced how coaches responded to the above five items, Chi-square analyses were undertaken. Males and females did not differ meaningfully on any of the items. For NCCP level it was necessary to combine Levels 1 and 2, and Parts A and B into a single category (n = 20), as well as combine Levels 4 and 5 (n = 56) in order to achieve adequate numbers in each group for purposes of comparison. NCCP level was not related to how coaches responded to the five items. The only significant finding was that higher-level coaches rated national sport organizations as a poorer potential source of new ideas than lower-level coaches (χ 2 (8) = 18.30, p <.05). Whereas years of experience and university programs related to sport were unrelated to coaches responses to the five items assessing their preferred sources of information, whether the coach was full-time or part-time did have some effect. Part-time coaches were more likely than than their full-time counterparts to indicate having no idea of whether university academic departments (χ 2 (4) = 10.47, p <.05), or high-performance centres (χ 2 (4) = 16.45, p <.01) would be good potential sources of new ideas for coaches. WHAT BARRIERS EXIST IN REGARD TO COACHES ACCESS TO NEW IDEAS? Six items from the survey were related to this question. The first item asked, Do you share new ideas from sport research with other coaches in your sport? and the second asked Do you share new ideas with coaches in other sports?. Both questions had three possible answers ( I frequently share, I rarely share, or I never share ) and 72.5% reported frequently sharing in their own sport whereas 51.2% frequently share with coaches from other sports. The third and fourth items investigated coaches perceptions regarding the funding their organization gives them to access new sport research ideas. Both questions had three possible answers ( Yes, No, or Unsure ). The third asked, Does your organization provide you with access to annual funding to attend clinics, conferences or seminars where you could find sport research ideas? (70.7% said Yes ), and the fourth asked Does your organization provide you with funding to purchase resources such as journals, magazines, books, or online resources? (62.3% said Yes ). For the fifth item, Do you know a sport scientist personally, such that you can approach them for advice? 76.6% responded Yes. The final item asked coaches to rank four possible barriers to accessing new ideas (see Table 7). The barrier that received the largest number of combined most difficult and 2 nd most difficult rankings was Finding out where the information is, which is consistent with the responses reported in Table 3. Barrier #3, Translating the information was the least difficult barrier, and this seems to be consistent with the coaches previous response that they can adapt knowledge to their sport. Chi-square analyses were undertaken to determine whether any of the demographic

11 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 Number Table 6. Ratings of Organizations as Potential Sources of Sport Research Information Available to Coaches Source Excellent N (%) Good N (%) Fair N (%) Poor N (%) No Idea N (%) Coaches Association of Canada 12 (7.1) 57 (33.7) 53 (31.4) 32 (18.9) 15 (8.9) Individual sport s coaching association 9 (5.4) 56 (33.5) 45 (26.9) 47 (28.1) 10 (6.0) National sport organizations 11 (6.6) 51 (30.5) 59 (35.3) 39 (23.4) 7 (4.2) Provincial sport organizations 7 (4.2) 34 (20.2) 56 (33.3) 67 (39.9) 4 (2.4) University academic departments 9 (5.5) 48 (29.1) 55 (33.3) 49 (29.7) 4 (2.4) High performance centers 21 (12.7) 56 (33.9) 42 (25.5) 26 (15.8) 20 (12.1) Sport science/research councils 8 (4.9) 33 (20.1) 48 (29.3) 40 (24.4) 35 (21.3) SportDiscus/SIRC 4 (2.5) 25 (15.3) 35 (21.5) 27 (16.6) 72 (44.2) Sport Canada 2 (1.2) 18 (10.8) 61 (36.5) 50 (29.9) 36 (21.6) Table 7. Level of Difficulty that Different Barriers Pose to Coaches Ability to Access Sport Science Information Possible Barriers Most Difficult 2nd Most Difficult 3rd Most Difficult Least Difficult 1. Access to funding to cover costs of getting information 54 (30.5) 37 (21.4) 42 (25.9) 34 (23.6) 2. Finding out where the information is 35 (19.8) 72 (41.6) 38 (23.5) 21 (14.6) 3. Translating the information from sport science into applied coaching situations 29 (16.4) 42 (24.3) 57 (35.2) 38 (26.4) 4. There are many higher priorities 59 (33.3) 22 (12.7) 25 (15.4) 51 (35.4) Total

12 330 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists variables influenced how coaches responded to these six items. Male coaches were significantly less likely than female coaches to report never sharing new research ideas with coaches in other sports (χ 2 (2) = 8.86, p <.05), and were less likely to report that their organization provided funding to purchase resources such as journals, magazines, books, or on-line resources, (χ 2 (2) = 6.60, p <.05). Part-time coaches were less likely than their full-time counterparts to indicate that their organization provided funding for both attending clinics, conferences or seminars to find sport research ideas (χ 2 (2) = 15.17, p <.01), and for purchasing resources such as journals, magazines, books, or on-line resources (χ 2 (2) = 11.25, p <.01). DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was to improve our understanding of where and how highperformance coaches seek information and new ideas. The 205 CIS high-performance coaches who responded to the questionnaire were predominantly male head coaches of team sports, experienced, highly educated in both formal and coach education, and working in a variety of university environments. As a result, it would be fair to expect these coaches to have a reasonable ability to understand sport science information and to have relatively easy access to that information. THE KNOWLEDGE GAP The results of this study were consistent with the findings of Williams and Kendall [5], showing that coaches are looking for new ideas in various areas of sport science and believe that sport science research is being conducted that can benefit their sport. However, our results revealed some different gaps between the ideas coaches are looking for, and the sport science research they believe is being done. For example, the coaches were looking for new ideas in tactics and strategies, but were not confident that sport science research was contributing new ideas in that area of sport. Given the preponderance of team sport coaches in the sample, the emphasis on tactics and strategies is not surprising; however, the perceived lack of sport science research in this area may reveal a significant knowledge gap. Our study did not include a review of the sport science that is conducted in each area, and therefore we cannot conclude with certainty that sport research is not focusing on tactics and strategies, but we are confident in our finding that the coaches do not believe it is being done. Conversely, coaches indicated they are less likely to be looking for new ideas in the physical training areas but are quite sure that sport science research is contributing to the knowledge of physical training. The coaches in our study seemed confident that in the area of mental training and preparation, there was congruence between what coaches are looking for and what they believe is being done, whereas in the study by Williams and Kendall [5] the coaches indicated a need for more research in this area. Jedlic et al. [24] reported that coaches working with high-performance athletes often encourage mental imagery. Therefore, it is not surprising that the coaches in this study rated mental training and preparation as the second highest area of interest when it comes to research of new ideas. Furthermore, about 85% of coaches responded that they believe sport science is likely or definitely being done in this area. These results reveal that coaches are thoughtful about what kinds of research are being conducted in sport science and are not making sweeping generalizations about all research for example. It is not surprising that this sample of highly educated coaches would be aware of different areas of sport science and the relevance of those areas to their practice. These results might also reflect higher perceived accessibility of the sport psychology literature to

13 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 Number the coaches than other areas of research. Determining the extent to which their perceptions of information availability are supported as well as determining what areas of sport science are most difficult for them to access (either physically or intellectually) will be important questions for future research. SOURCES OF INFORMATION PREFERRED BY COACHES Our study provided further confirmation of the findings of Gould et al. [27] and Irwin et al. [23] that coaches get their information from other coaches. While their findings likely apply to the majority of the population of coaches, our focus on high-performance coaches adds another level of detail to their findings. Our results show that university-based highperformance coaches also prefer to learn from other coaches, and their access to other head coaches and assistant coaches within their own institution may partially reinforce and explain their practice of looking to other coaches for ideas. However, we share the concerns of Cushion et al. [20] that this coach-to-coach knowledge transfer system could reproduce existing practice at the expense of innovation and/or critical analysis. It was thought that, of all coaches, university-based coaches should have the best and easiest access to sport science information and to sport scientists. Results indicated that coaches at institutions with sportrelated academic programs, especially graduate programs, did have better access to sport scientists than coaches at universities with no sport-related academic programs. This finding is very likely due to the close proximity of coaches to sport scientists and sport science information in these institutions. It is possible that familiarity of the coaches with the individual sport scientists may be a key to future improvements in knowledge transfer, but further research is required. In addition, the results also indicated that full-time coaches were more likely than part-time coaches to be aware of sources of sport science information and believe that coaches in their sport have access to sport scientists. It is possible these findings indicate that full-time coaches are more likely to have developed a strategy to network with sport scientists and have better access to those individuals when they have coaching problems. In addition, part-time coaches may have less responsibility or time for gathering new coaching ideas and therefore may be less likely to know of the sport science resources that are available or believe there is acess to sport science and sport scientists. It is possible that the part-time coaches in this sample are more representative of non-university coaches, which raises concerns regarding how such coaches (which are the majority of coaches in Canada) access their information. Gould et al. [27] and Irwin et al. [23] found that experienced coaches accessed knowledge in different ways than inexeperienced coaches and required different types of knowledge. Werthner and Trudel [3] suggested that experienced coaches would be more likely to utilize proactive unmediated learning processes than inexperienced coaches. Our results extend these previous findings by looking specifically at sport science knowledge. The more experienced coaches in our study were more likely than the less experienced coaches to believe that coaches in their sport have access to sport scientists and our results indicate that this access may be through an unmediated process; i.e., personal contact. Overall, sport scientists and sport science journal articles and databases were the lowest ranked sources of new ideas for these coaches. On the basis of this evidence, there is indeed a gap in the transfer of knowledge from sport scientists to coaches. WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO CLOSING THE GAP? The issue of barriers was explored to understand whether there were systemic issues adding to the problem. The larger barriers for all the coaches were having other higher priorities,

14 332 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists finding access to funding for sport science resources and finding out exactly where information is when they need it. With the exception of coaches at universities without a sports-related program, proximity and reluctance to share ideas with other coaches did not seem to be barriers for the majority of coaches involved in this study. The pattern of seeking information to solve a problem is consistent with Werthner and Trudel s [3] unmediated learning, which is the coaches preference for seeking information on their own when they feel a need to do so.this style of information seeking would probably not be conducive to effectively using sport science, which takes time (to review literature) and expertise (to find relevant papers if they are there). Futhermore, such information seeking for current problem solving is likely to be both very specific and associated with time pressure. For example, if a coach is having a team-cohesion issue in mid-season, he or she probably doesn t have time to consider many ways of solving this problem; they want their exact problem solved immediately. Second, it seems reasonable that coaches, whether or not they have higher degrees, are not interested in conducting extensive literature searches themselves. They are probably looking more for literature reviews and summaries than single articles, depending on the problem they are trying to solve. Thus, there is a very clear indication here that there is need for a mechanism or process to encourage knowledge transfer between the sport scientists and coaches. Access to funding to cover costs of getting new information was rated as a difficult barrier for all the coaches, but especially the part-time coaches. This may be because the institutions the coaches are working for do not promote or do not provide money for such information seeking. The part-time coaches may be rating this as a particularly difficult barrier because of both limited resources provided to them in part-time positions, and limitations they place on their own contributions, again because of the part-time positions. IMPLICATIONS There is strong evidence of a gap between what coaches want and what they think is being done in some areas such as tactics and strategies and skill development, so there is work to be done in some important content areas either in encouraging research, or in making coaches aware of where the research is. Whereas CIS coaches prefer to learn from other coaches, they do know and have opportunities to work with sport scientists. However, they appear to learn most frequently from other coaches and do not seem to access the written knowledge that sport scientists produce. Sport scientists are expected to publish in scholarly journals, not in sport-specific newsletters, and coaches are not consulting the sport science literature. Even in universities with a physical education or kinesiology program, despite the physical proximity of the coaches and the sport scientists, the lack of congruence of the expectations and goals of coaches and sport scientists may be a barrier to interaction between them. In university settings, it may be possible to create work-related expectations that coaches show evidence of innovation in their programs based on sport science and that the scientists make efforts to increase the accessibility of their work to the coaches. Researchers are typically required by funding agencies to provide their plans to disseminate their research findings to practitioners. Our conclusions agree with those of Williams and Kendall [5] that it is necessary to encourage researchers to make more efforts to disseminate their knowledge to the practitioners in their field (coaches). Sport scientists could also consider increasing their research focus to areas of concern to high-performance coaches, which our study has shown to be in tactics and strategies, and psychological areas. Coaches could facilitate the process by communicating with sport scientists when

15 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 3 Number problems arise. It may be that sport scientists can contribute to problem solving through their knowledge of the sport science literature, or through their own personal experience. At the very least, the sport scientists would become more aware of the problems faced by highperformance coaches which might increase the possibility of collaborations between the two groups around both knowledge transfer and knowledge creation through scholarly activity. The results of this study are informative because if this group of highly educated university-based coaches have difficulty accessing sport science knowledge, then the situation may be much worse for high-performance coaches not located in a university environment. In Canada, this would describe the situation of the majority of highperformance coaches. As coaches at or near the top of their profession, the university coaches are likely the people who coaches within the athlete development system in their sport consult for their new ideas. Future researchers may wish to examine the issue of sport science use in other populations of coaches (e.g., professional coaches, community coaches, elite amateur sport coaches), and it might also be prudent to move ahead with research examining better means of transferring and translating sport science and making it accessible to coaches. CONCLUSION This study suggests that coaches do engage in knowledge seeking, but there is also a need for improved knowledge transfer. That is, coaches appear to seek information for problems they encounter, and report always looking for new ideas. However, there is not a clear point where sport science enters the predominantly coach-to-coach knowledge transfer system. The barriers to the coaches access to sport science are the time required to find and read scientific journals, and lack of direct access to a sport scientist. Strategies to remove the barriers could include rewarding sport scientists for successful transfer of their knowledge to practice through direct communication with coaches. Another possibility might be having more sport scientists do presentations of their research at coaching clinics and conferences. REFERENCES 1. Lyle, J., The Coaching Process: An Overview, in: Cross, N. and Lyle, J., eds., The Coaching Process: Principles and Practice for Sport, Butterworth Heinmann, Oxford, 2000, Malete, L. and Feltz, D., The Effect of a Coaching Education Program on Coaching Efficacy, The Sport Psychologist, 2000, 14, Werthner, P., and Trudel, P., A New Theoretical Perspective for Understanding How Coaches Learn to Coach, The Sport Psychologist, 2006, 20, Coaching Association of Canada, National Coaching Certification Program, 2007, 5. Williams, S. J. and Kendall, L., Perceptions of Elite Coaches and Sports Scientists of the Research Needs for Elite Coaching Practice, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2007, 25(14), Bishop, D., Burnett, A., Farrow, D., Gabbett, T.J. and Newton, R.U., Sports-Science Roundtable: Does Sports-Science Research Influence Practice? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2006, 1(2), Burke, E.R., Bridging the Gap in Sports Science, Athletic Purchasing and Facilities 4(11), 20; 22; Essick, R., The Quest to be the Best: What Coaches Can Learn From Advances in Sport Science, Sportstravel, 1998, 2(5), Anon, Rugby Coaching Cards: Essential Information for Coaches and Players at Every Level, Scottish Rugby Union, Edinburgh, Anon, Education and Information for Coaches, Swim Magazine, 1998, 14(2), Anon, Finland: Innovations in the Training of Finnish Coaches, Sports Information Bulletin, 1993, 32, 2712.

16 334 High Performance Coaches Accessing the Knowledge of Sports Scientists 12. Cook, B., How Do We Bridge the Gap Between Sports Scientists and Coaches? Coaching Director, 1986, 3(2), Russo, R., Coaches and Scientists: Partners in the Development of Information, Spotlight on Youth Sports, 1993, 15(4), Sands, W.A., How Can Coaches Use Sport Science? Track Coach, 1995, Winter,134, , King, D., Smith, S. and Casey, K., How d You Do That Triple Lutz? Part 2, Skating, 2002, 79(1), Hata, T., Endo, T., Morioka, R. and Sakamoto, A., Information Utilised by University Athletic Coaches, Unpublished Paper Presented at International Association for Sports Information, Scientific Congress, June 7-9, 1993, Rome, Italy. 17. Johnson, J.M., Home Delivery: Supplying Up To Date Information to Thousands of Coaches and Sport Professionals, Paper in the Proceedings of the International Association for Sports Information, April 25-27, 2001, Lausanne, Switzerland, p Ban, D., Sports Information Technology in Education of Coaches in Yugoslavia: A Course at the Sports Academy, Paper in the proceedings of the Internationa Association for Sports Information, April 25-27, 2001, Lausanne, Switzerland, p Clark, N., A Study of the Information Needs and Information-Seeking Behaviour of Australian Accredited Coaches in the Sports of Swimming and Track and Field, Unpublished Master s thesis, 1995, University of Canberra, Australia, Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M. and Jones, R.L., Coach Education and Continuing Professional Development: Experience and Learning to Coach, Quest, 2003, 55, Rodgers, W., Reade, I. and Hall, C., Factors that Influence Coaches Use of Sound Coaching Practices, International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2007, 2(2), Hendrick, A., Learning From Each Other: Sources of New Information, Strength & Conditioning Association Journal, 2002, 24(1), Irwin, G., Hanton, S. and Kerwin, D.G., Reflective Practice and the Origins of Elite Coaching Knowledge, Reflective Practice, 2004, 5(3), Bell, M., The Development of Expertise, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1997, 68(2), Cushion, C.J., Coaching Research and Coach Education: Do the Sum of the Parts Equal the Whole? SportaPolis, September, 2001, Jedlic, B., Hall, N., Munroe-Chandler, K. and Hall, C., Coaches Encouragement of Athletes Imagery Use, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2007, 78, Gould, D., Giannini, J., Krane, V. and Hodge, K., Educational Needs of U.S. National Team, Pan American and Olympic coaches, Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 1990, 9,