Another bad day at the training ground: Coping with ambiguity in the coaching context

By Robyn L. Jones, M. Wallace. 2005

322 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b71d2478c9d004a61f7c5f328048a27f69b189b1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. P. Potrac
2. C. Cushion
3. Robyn L. Jones
4. Lee J. Nelson
5. J. Côté
6. R. Groom
7. T. Cassidy
8. P. Trudel

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. C. Cushion
2. Robyn L. Jones
3. P. Potrac
4. Lee J. Nelson
5. J. Côté
6. P. Trudel
7. R. Groom
8. Wade D. Gilbert

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. C. Cushion
2. P. Potrac
3. Robyn L. Jones
4. P. Trudel
5. Penny Werthner
6. J. Côté
7. P. Turner
8. Wade D. Gilbert

Citations in the corpus

• Investigating the Idiosyncratic Learning Paths of Elite Canadian Coaches (2009, background): “As Jones and Wallace [31] have noted, the answers you reach depend on the questions you ask, and we argue that with a simple, open-ended, initial question, the environment was created to allow the coaches to speak broadly about how they had learned to coach.”
• ‘Studentship’ and ‘impression management’ in an advanced soccer coach education award (2010, background): “Borrowing a sentiment from Jones and Wallace (2005), we believe that such knowledge can and should provide the basis to better inform future coach education provision.”
• Modelling the Complexity of the Coaching Process (2007, background): “As Jones and Wallace [7] argue, we do not understand the phenomenon of coaching sufficiently in-depth as a precursor to proscribe.”
• Carl Rogers, learning and educational practice: critical considerations and applications in sports coaching (2014, background): “Contrasting goals inevitably lead to the recommendation of a myriad of alternative means (Jones & Wallace, 2005).”
• Positive Youth Development: A Measurement Framework for Sport (2012, background): “However, a longstanding limitation in research has been the difficulty in evaluating coaching outcomes and effectiveness [9, 12].”
• The Role of the Coach in Facilitating Positive Youth Development: Moving from Theory to Practice (2011, unknown): “The resultant picture of coaching practice is one of an uncertain, improvised and messy reality where positive youth development may be a utopian and unattainable goal (Cushion, Armour & Jones, 2006; Jones & Wallace, 2005).”
• Understanding Sports Coaching: The Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice (2004, background): “In this respect, and in keeping with the literature in sports coaching (e.g., Jones 2000; Jones and Wallace 2005; Jones and Turner 2006), he argued that practice”
• ‘I found out the hard way’: micro-political workings in professional football (2015, background): “Instead, his experiences highlight the complexity, ambiguity and pathos that coaches frequently face in attempts to integrate themselves into the given socio-pedagogical landscape (Jones & Wallace, 2005).”
• Teaching coaches to coach holistically: can Problem-Based Learning (PBL) help? (2006, background): “General agreement exists that the dynamic and intricate nature of the work in teaching, guiding and managing athletes precludes any paint-by-number plans that practitioners can easily follow (e.g. Saury & Durand, 1998; Gilbert & Trudel, 2004; Jones & Wallace, 2005).”
• Developing coaching pedagogy: seeking a better integration of theory and practice (2012, background): “It gives credence to steering as opposed to controlling the behaviours of others, and to invest efforts where they can have the most impact (Jones & Wallace, 2005, 2006).”
• Power, Conflict, and Cooperation: Toward a Micropolitics of Coaching (2009, background): “Although the traditional rationalistic conceptualization of sports coaching has undoubtedly helped to improve practice, it has been increasingly criticized for not adequately reflecting the activity’s complex nature (e.g., Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2004; Jones, 2000; Jones & Wallace, 2005).”