Diversifying approaches to research on athlete–coach relationships

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport Diversifying approaches to research on athlete–coach relationships Artur Poczwardowskia,*, James E. Barottb, Sophia Jowettc a Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Barry University, 11300 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695, USA b Department of Leadership and Counseling, Eastern Michigan University, 304 Porter Bldg., Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA c School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK Available online 21 September 2005 Abstract Objective: To present a new methodological strategy for the exploration of interpersonal dynamics in athlete– coach dyads. Method: Analytical research—review of methodological approaches to studying athlete–coach dyads. Results: The following directions for future research were identified: (a) diversifying units of analysis and considering multiple units of analysis in studying interpersonal relationships; (b) shifting the methodological and conceptual focus from the individual to interindividual unit of analysis; (c) diversifying theoretical frameworks that can be used to understand athlete–coach relationships; (d) diversifying methodological approaches to examining athlete–coach dyads, which will allow for matching specific research problems with appropriate methodological solutions; (e) considering a more general framework of inquiry that suits the emerging field of interpersonal relationships in sport; and (f) diversifying the phenomena under study (e.g. including interpretation and meanings, diversifying issues and populations). Conclusions: The athlete–coach relationship as a research territory is ‘topographically’ mapped out with concrete recommendations for future projects. Further, there is a need to maintain sport specificity of the theoretical models of athlete–coach dyads. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Athlete–coach relationship; Interpersonal issues; Methodological issues Recently, sport psychologists have expressed a growing interest in relationship issues in sport, with a specific reference to the athlete–coach dyad. This renewed research and practice focus has recognized the importance of the impact of interpersonal processes on the quality of athletes and coaches’ personal experience and athletic performance (e.g. Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002; Wylleman, 2000). Interpersonal relationships are often complex, dynamic, * Corresponding author. Tel.: C1 305 899 4944. E-mail address: apoczwardowski@barry.edu (A. Poczwardowski). 1469-0292/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.08.002 126 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 multifaceted, and reciprocal. Consequently, studying relationships requires a sound theoretical foundation and very thoughtful selection of methods of inquiry (Hinde, 1996; Ickes, 2000). The future of scientific efforts aimed at understanding athlete–coach dyads depends heavily on the quality of methodology used and the creativity in conceptualizations employed. Whilst respectable advancements have been made since Wylleman’s paper in 2000 in which the athlete–coach relationship as a line of inquiry was viewed as an ‘uncharted territory’ (p. 555), coach– athlete relationship as a phenomenon in its own right continues to remain a fairly new area of scientific inquiry. The present paper attempts to describe ‘topographically’ this research territory with concrete recommendations for future projects. First, while briefly reviewing major themes and limitations in research on athlete–coach relationships, we will (a) identify the multiple contexts in which the relationship between athletes and coaches is initiated, developed, maintained, and terminated and (b) argue for further diversification in the units of analysis to improve our understanding of athlete–coach dyads. Importantly, we will bring into a sharper focus the interindividual (or interpersonal) unit of analysis, which should be the driving axis for identifying research problems in understanding dyadic relationships. Second, because diversification in the units of analysis invites consideration of sport psychology sister disciplines (e.g. general and sport-specific social psychology, general and sportspecific sociology), we will discuss the need to diversify theoretical frameworks to better understand the multifaceted nature of athlete–coach relationships. Third, in order to be able to adequately account for phenomena that represent the various dimensions and contexts of the athlete–coach relationships, we will argue for diversifying methodological approaches to research on athlete–coach dyads as can be demonstrated through a thoughtful use of both qualitative methods and quantitative methods individually and in combination (as mixed-method designs). A decision which method type to use should be based on a specific research problem and the purpose of a given study. We will also discuss a more general paradigm of scientific inquiry that suits the emerging field of interpersonal relationships in sport and identify other important considerations for future research (e.g. ethics). Fourth, we will advocate diversifying the phenomena under study such as moving beyond task-related processes, including interpretation and meanings, and diversifying issues and populations. Finally, we will share a reflection on appropriate utilization of the diversification so the sport-specificity of the theoretical models of athlete–coach dyads is maintained. Not until very recently, a small group of sport psychologists narrowed their methodological, theoretical, and ethical reflections specifically to the interpersonal issues in sport. Jowett and her colleagues (e.g. Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Jowett & Meek, 2000; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2003; 2004) developed a single case study approach, exploratory qualitative methodology, and quantitative (questionnaire-based) strategies to investigate athlete–coach relationships. Based on his own and collaborative research, Wylleman (2000) delineated a model to understand and assess interpersonal relationships in competitive sport. In addition, a discussion initiated by Wylleman in the International Journal of Sport Psychology (Vanden Auweele & Rzewnicki, 2000; Vergeer, 2000) embraced the methodological and ethical concerns in investigating interpersonal issues in sport. Finally, Poczwardowski and colleagues (Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002; Poczwardowski, Barott & Peregoy, 2002) developed a qualitative-interpretive framework to investigate the dynamics and context of athlete–coach dyads. These recent and independent efforts mark the beginning of the field of athlete– coach relationships in sport. Future research efforts might benefit from a structured reflection on the process and outcome of knowledge generation. A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 127 Methodological advancements in sport and exercise psychology Sport and exercise psychology is a rapidly developing field with respect to scientific inquiry (both basic and applied; Biddle, Markland, Gilbourne, Chatzisarantis & Sparkes, 2001; Sparkes, 1998). Discussions on developing effective research philosophies, methodologies, and methods have recently been rejuvenated in an effort to ensure high validity (or credibility) and reliability (or dependability) of the sport and exercise psychology knowledge base (Biddle et al., 2001). For a discipline to advance, the robustness of the scientific inquiry is essential in order to gain credibility within the wider scientific world (e.g. Biddle et al., 2001), and acceptance of the public regarding professional services offered (e.g. Gould, 2002; Silva, Conroy & Zizzi, 1999). For that reason, scientists continue to debate important theoretical and empirical issues such as: (a) the nature of scientific inquiry (e.g. Biddle et al., 2001; Dzewaltowski, 1997; Hardy, Jones & Gould, 1996; Krane, 1994; Martens, 1987); (b) the use of qualitative methodology (e.g. Culver, Gilbert & Trudel, 2003; Scanlan, Ravizza & Stein, 1989; Sparkes, 1998; Strean, 1998); (c) the use of quantitative designs and statistical procedures (e.g. Biddle et al., 2001; Atkinson & Nevill, 2001); (d) the use of case studies and single-subject designs (Bryan, 1987; Smith, 1988); (e) the use of multi-method (mixed-method) approaches (e.g. Dunn, 1994; Giacobbi, Poczwardowski & Hager, 2005); and (f) the use of psychometrics (e.g. Beckmann & Kellmann, 2003; Duda, 1998). It is not our goal to evaluate these efforts on methodological grounds or to outline suggestions for future development of scientific inquiry in sport and exercise psychology (see Biddle et al, 2001 for an insightful discussion of these issues). Instead, we noticed an interesting thread that links these recent debates, namely, diversification. Diversification in the development of scientific inquiry reflects an expansion in the types of theoretical and methodological approaches used to address research questions. More specifically, diversification can be observed in (a) the way conceptual and theoretical models are developed either through field-based research or through applying well established theory from other psychological and related disciplines; (b) the increasing number of variables sampled from all levels of analysis including individual (e.g. person’s needs, perceptions), interindividual (e.g. dyads), group (team), institutional (e.g. collegiate vs. professional sports), and cultural (e.g. nation, race and ethnicity); (c) the introduction of new methods and methodologies (e.g. meta-analysis, narrative analysis, path models); and (d) expanding populations (e.g. minority groups) and contexts (e.g. sport, exercise, physical education, physical activity). Evidently, diversification is an evolutionary direction in methodology within sport psychology and it can enhance theory and research pertaining to the study of athlete–coach dyads. Themes and limitations in research on athlete–coach relationship Poczwardowski (1997; Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002) outlined five fundamental approaches used in studying relationships in sports from a psychological perspective: psychodynamics and personality-focused, behavioral, cognitive, social psychological, and interactional approaches, each associated with interpersonal behavior, yet targeting a different set of variables from the individual unit of analysis. As a consequence, conceptual and methodological models in athlete–coach relationship research developed separately. For example, psychodynamics and personality-focused investigators studied coaches’ and athletes’ personality traits, needs, motives, intrapsychic conflicts, and past 128 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 experiences (e.g. Hendry, 1969; Ogilvie & Tutko, 1966). Most of these concepts are not relational (i.e. they are sampled from the individual unit of analysis), so other psychodynamic concepts such as transference and countertransference (e.g. Ogilvie, 1993; Ogilvie, Tofler, Conroy & Drell, 1998) and psychodynamic interpersonal theories (e.g. Conroy & Benjamin, 2001) had to be employed to further the understanding of the interpersonal dynamics between athletes and coaches. In response to these challenges, researchers representing the interactional approach (e.g. Carron & Bennett, 1977; Carron & Chelladurai, 1978; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978; Pease, Locke & Burlingame, 1971) made efforts to systematize the emerging understanding of athlete–coach relationships and differentiated between person and situation variables. In that, it was an important step in diversifying the units of analysis used to investigate relationships in sport. Nonetheless, although the pioneering efforts (e.g. Carron & Bennett, 1977) and the more contemporary pursuits (e.g. Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) motivational model, and Conroy and colleagues’ [e.g. Conroy & Coatsworth, 2004] representational models of others and self) have achieved multiple and meaningful insights, they have contained certain limitations that restrict a more complete understanding of athlete–coach relationships. These limitations include: (a) favoring of individual units of analysis, (b) over-utilizing psychological perspective, (b) under-utilizing qualitative methodology, and (d) narrowing the spectrum of phenomena under study. What follows is a discussion of some potential ways of overcoming these shortcomings through diversifying research approaches to understanding athlete–coach dyads. Towards an interpersonal theory of the athlete–coach dyad Diversifying units of analysis Analysis of the athlete–coach relationship can be undertaken with attention given to varying units of analysis (see Vernon (1972) for more details). These units are: (a) behavior (or actions; e.g. giving feedback, inquiring about a young athlete with his or her parent); (b) individual (or person; e.g. personality traits, perceptions, motives, needs): (c) interindividual (or interpersonal; athlete–coach dyads; e.g. degree of coach–athlete compatibility): (d) group (or team; e.g. type of leadership, interpersonal roles), (d) institutional (e.g. norms and values of collegiate vs. professional sports); and (f) cultural (collective traditions, norms, and values from local to national; e.g. cross-cultural differences). The practice of focusing on the perceptions and behaviors of either athletes or coaches as social actors in the relationship has been dominant and, hence, has perpetuated the use of individual unit of analysis. Social psychologists such as Baxter and Wilmot (1986); Hinde (1979) have repeatedly argued that such practice neglects the relationship itself, and therefore is logically incorrect when one is interested in the interpersonal or interindividual phenomena. For example, the individual unit of analysis has been prominent in the behavioral approach which has focused on coaches’ verbal and nonverbal behavior and on ways of recording and analyzing this behavior (e.g. Rushall, 1977; 1989; Smith, Smoll & Curtis, 1979). This approach is reflected in two coach leadership frameworks: the multidimensional model (Chelladurai, 1984) and the mediational model (Smoll & Smith, 1989). Both conceptual frameworks have focused on coaches’ perceived or actual behavioral processes (‘what coaches do’). The seminal work of Smith, Smoll and their colleagues (e.g. Barnett, Smoll & Smith, 1992; Smith et al., 1979; Smoll & Smith, 1989; 1998) advised coaches to focus more on enjoyment and effort, reinforcement, mistake-contingent encouragement, corrective A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 129 instruction, and technical instruction; and administer less nonreinforcement, punishment, punitive technical instruction, and regimenting behavior. Smith, Smoll and colleagues demonstrated that these changes in coaching behavior resulted in a number of positive behavioral (i.e. reduced attrition) and psychological outcomes (e.g. improved perceptions of the coach). Similarly, multidimensional leadership models examined selected aspects of athlete–coach relationships (e.g. athlete perception and satisfaction), various demographic variables, and team variables (e.g. emotional climate, cohesion) in relation to coaching styles (e.g. Chelladurai, 1984; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978; Salminen & Liukkonen, 1996). Clearly, the behavioral perspectives favored the individual unit of analysis; thus, examining behaviors and perceptions of an individual. From an interpersonal perspective, focusing on one participant in the relationship at a time—common in both behavioral and personality-focused approaches—is a problem in that it may miss or misrepresent some of the more complex issues that are inherently present in the interpersonal dynamics in the athlete–coach dyad. Both relationship participants need to be included in the designs (Jowett & Meek, 2000; Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002) so the ‘uni-directional’ bias can be overcome (Wylleman, 2000, p. 559). In short, focusing only on the coach’s instruction and feedback and their impact on a limited number of outcome variables (e.g. satisfaction, self-esteem, attrition, burnout levels) of either athletes or coaches creates an incomplete picture concerning the multifaceted nature of the athlete–coach dyad. Consequently, there is a very limited practical import of the behavioral or personality-focused findings beyond what type of athletes coaches should recruit or what coaches should or should not do in terms of their instructional behavior that focuses on the task. Diversifying theoretical frameworks A serious limitation in research on athlete–coach relationships is the disregard of the highly important social context (Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002). The broader interpersonal environment of athlete and coach needs to be considered in order to contextualize the evolving understanding of dyadic relationships in a more complex (and highly influential) web of relations with significant others (Coppel, 1995; Hellstedt, 1987; 1995; Vanden Auweele & Rzewnicki, 2000; Wylleman, 2000). The context of group (or team), institutional, and cultural norms and values need to be factored into future examinations (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2003; 2004; Vergeer, 2000). The psychological perspective (and its five fundamental approaches as reviewed earlier in the article) that dominated majority of the initial analytical efforts cannot account effectively for these multiple contexts. Clearly, an important (and probably undesired) consequence of favoring individual unit of analysis was a limited theoretical and methodological import from other sport-related disciplines (e.g. social psychology of sport, sociology of sport, and philosophy of sport) as well as from other social sciences disciplines (e.g. sociology, anthropology, organizational and administrative studies, and the growing scientific field of social and personal relationships). These allied disciplines persuasively indicate powerful determinants of human behavior (e.g. social norms, organizational hierarchies, traditions within a culture) that are not solely psychological in nature. Additionally, these disciplines developed appropriate relational concepts to account for interpersonal behavior in dyads and small and large groups. For instance, sport psychologists might consider Hinde’s (1996) dimensions in interpersonal relationships such as the content and diversity of interactions, frequency and patterning of interactions, conflict and power, self-disclosure, and interpersonal perception. We believe that diversifying 130 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 theoretical frameworks and inviting interdisciplinary approach (i.e. social-organizational-cultural) is critical to the advancement of the field of interpersonal relationships in sport. Diversifying methodological approaches As pointed out earlier, the quantitative methods of the psychological experimental approach to understand human behavior have significantly contributed to understanding numerous phenomena including the athlete–coach relationship. Interpersonal relationships can be viewed as a dynamic product of social interaction in which interpretations and meanings are actively negotiated by social actors (Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1959; Homans, 1950; Maxwell, 2004). Issues of conflict and power, the dynamics of self-disclosure and trust, the interplay of organizational values and hierarchies, and other interpersonal phenomena present specific epistemological challenges in generating trustworthy knowledge. Imposing interpretations and meaning through overly focusing on a few ‘controllable’ variables, using psychometrics extensively, and minimizing the input of the social actors on knowledge generation have characterized most early research efforts on athlete–coach relationship and unnecessarily narrowed the scope of the issues studied. Research questions should drive the methodology of a research project. In order to do justice to the nature of the athlete–coach relationship as a socially construed phenomenon of highly process-oriented nature, qualitative methods seem very appropriate, as have, for example, been employed by Jowett and Meek (2000); Poczwardowski, Barott, and Henschen (2002). The phenomenological, interpretive, and other qualitative designs hold promise in the nearest future for advancing our understanding of interpersonal dynamics in multiple contexts (see also Maxwell, 2004; Vergeer, 2000). We do not want to imply, however, that qualitative designs alone can account for all issues that pertain to adequate understanding the athlete–coach relationship. Diversifying methodologies allows for an effective matching the research methods (and instrumentation) with a given research problem. An example of one step towards this goal is the development and validation of measures that are capable to reliably and accurately assess the quality of the athlete–coach relationship and related interpersonal phenomena (e.g. communication and conflict). Vealey (1986) noted that some of the general psychology conceptual frameworks and the non-sport specific psychometric instrumentation may have had a limited empirical import in sport psychology research (see also Duda, 1998). For instance, Schutz’s Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation -Behavior questionnaire (FIRO-B; 1966) used in the early studies on coach–athlete compatibility, might put these studies in a disadvantage regarding a meaningful analysis of interpersonal behavior and cognition of athletes and coaches due to a very limited specificity of the measure (Poczwardowski, Coakley & Kupiec, 2004). Wylleman (2000) identified Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1978; 1980) Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) as an important step towards assessment of interpersonal interaction in sports. He also argued that more psychometric tools that quantify variables of interpersonal behavior (i.e. cognitions, affect, and overt behavior) and which are specific to the relationship itself (rather than to leadership or group cohesion) need to be developed. Recent attempts to improve the measurement of interpersonal behavior and athlete–coach relationships in sport have been promising. Wylleman (1995) designed Sport Interpersonal Relationship Questionnaire (SIRQ) in three versions to examine athlete–coach interpersonal behaviors, athlete-parent interpersonal behaviors, and parents–coach interpersonal behaviors. More recent efforts by Jowett and Ntoumanis (2003; 2004) have concentrated on developing and validating a measure that assesses A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 131 coach–athlete perceived relationship quality components while taking into account the culturallyspecific context in which this relationship is situated. Jowett and Ntoumanis developed and validated the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) to measure basic components of the relationship, namely, closeness, commitment, and complementarity in the coach–athlete dyad. The CART-Q includes two versions, one is designed for the athlete and one is designed for the coach and can be administered in two languages English and Greek. Future psychometric efforts need to further diversify the variables; thus, questionnaires need to sample and simultaneously access information from a variety of units of analysis, including data on other interpersonal relationships in which athlete and coach are involved, team dynamics (e.g. athlete–athlete relationships), and institutional values of the athletic organization as context in which the relationship exists. The following subsection will continue the reflection on methodological diversification and will propose a systematic approach to scientific inquiry on athlete–coach dyads. We offer a step-by-step structure that might be considered in advancing the conceptual and methodological rigor in studying athlete–coach dyads. As a result, the researchers in sport can ground their interpersonal concepts in real (concrete) phenomena and ultimately construe knowledge across multiple units of analysis. Construing knowledge reflecting true phenomena Solving some of the major conceptual and methodological issues might be achieved through an appreciation of the basic structures of scientifically derived knowledge such as referential meanings, relational meanings, and systemic meanings (Brodbeck, 1963; see also Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Hinde, 1979; Homans, 1950; 1974; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Fig. 1 employs this structure and presents a matrix that can be applied to studying athlete–coach relationships. More specifically, developing referential meanings (i.e. names, definitions/descriptions, and classifications) of the major concepts in the interpersonal process needs to be pursued first. The referential meanings need to reach an operational level that facilitates further scientific investigation. Jowett and colleagues’ (e.g. Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2002; 2003; Jowett & Meek, 2000) attempts to classify coach–athlete dyads (i.e. typical, married, family, and correspondence) are an example of developing referential meaning. In addition, Jowett and associates clearly defined four major concepts that they used to analyze dyadic relationships (i.e. closeness, commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation). Whilst this level of knowledge generation has been reached thus far, future studies need to expand (diversify) the body of referential meanings in research on athlete–coach relationship. In particular, in-depth, descriptive, qualitative examinations of both observable and covert variables, single and multiple case studies, questionnaireand survey-based research are well suited for addressing such research problems; thus, continuing successfully this fundamental step in scientific logic (Biddle et al., 2001; Dale, 1996; Scanlan et al., 1989; Strean, 1998). Second, the relational meanings or relations between the descriptive concepts need to be further explored and clarified. A researcher needs to leave the concreteness of human behaviors (e.g. coach positive comments on punctuality in athlete arrival for practice) and move toward more abstract mechanisms (e.g. positive reinforcement) that underlie the relationships among any given concepts. It needs to be pointed out that a relationship between people is an abstract term, and as such constitutes one of the relational meanings for the discovered and described concepts (variables). Thus, the concept of the athlete–coach relationship represents a higher level of abstraction and needs to be represented as variables in relation to each other. There are several examples within the recent athlete–coach relationship research that examines the concept of the relationship as comprising different hierarchically 132 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 Types of Meaning (Knowledge Complexity) Units of Analysis in Studying Athlete-Coach Relationships Behavior Referential Meaning: Actions Definitions and Expressions Classifications Diversifying units of analysis Relational Meaning: Relations between the Descriptive Concepts Individual Needs Perceptions Interindividual Group Institutional Cultural Care Roles Shared Goals Collective values Compatibility Norms Resources Collective beliefs Leadership Functions Legal laws Cohesion Vision Customs Interpersonal climate Hierarchy Traditions Sociology Organizational psychology Cross-cultural psychology Administrative studies Anthropology Manifestations Personality traits Conflict Interpersonal skills (e.g., active listening, expressions of support) Interpersonal orientation (e.g., relatedness, exploitativeness) Interpersonal relationship (e.g., dyads) Behaviorism Personality psychology Power abuse Diversifying concepts Systemic Meaning: Broader Theoretical Explanation Diversifying disciplines Diversifying theories Psychophysiology Psychology of emotion and motivation Social psychology The field of interpersonal relationships Symbolic interactionism, social exchange theory, negotiated order theory, systems theory, feminism Fig. 1. Units of analysis and types of meaning in studying athlete–coach relationships. ordered constructs. For instance, Jowett (2003) identified that coach–athlete ‘closeness’ included both positive and negative aspects (e.g. like and dislike) and also revealed that coach–athlete ‘closeness’ and ‘commitment’ were associated (i.e. one affected the other); these findings in effect created a relational meaning for the variables used. This goal can be accomplished based on both the qualitative (e.g. phenomenology) and quantitative research paradigms (e.g. establishing associations between the variables [correlation designs] and establishing the causal relationships and mechanisms [experimental designs]). In other words, both hypothesis development (or description and interpretation) and hypothesis testing (or verification) should be undertaken in the iterative process of scientific inquiry (Hardy et al., 1996; Strean, 1998). Finally, developing a systemic meaning or a broader theoretical explanation (e.g. psychoanalytic, cognitive-behavioral, feminist) is critical to advance the basic and applied knowledge and guide research pursuits. Jowett (2003), in her analysis of a coach–athlete dyad in crisis, used Wilmot’s (1975) developmental perspective on dyadic communication to introduce a systemic meaning to her findings and showed the progressive (positive) and regressive (negative) spirals as stages in the coach–athlete dyadic relationship. In a sense, in construing systemic meaning causal relationships are inspected in their relation to meanings that are ascribed to interpersonal events by athletes and coaches within a particular relationship. In turn, these meanings reflect joint influences of the phenomena from different units of analysis listed above. Grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), mixed-method designs A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 133 (Giacobbi, et al., 2005), seeking casual explanations (Maxwell, 2004), and prolonged continuation of a focused line of research are essential in synthesizing knowledge at the level of systemic meaning (or highest abstraction). What is extremely important is that the existing theoretical (e.g. social exchange theory; Blau, 1964) and methodological (e.g. symbolic interactionism; Blumer, 1969) frameworks need to be used (individually or in a combination) to systematize the systemic meaning of a particular set or sets of data. The developed understanding should be applied and further tested and modified in field projects, intervention studies, action research, and cultural studies with a more active input from athletes, coaches, parents, and other significant others as the major social actors on sport (Eklund, 1993; Evans, Hardy & Fleming, 2000; Fisher, Butryn & Roper, 2003; Gilbourne, 2000; Vergeer, 2000). Finally, it is proposed that the studying of interpersonal relationships and behaviors should be guided by major accomplishments of systems theory, as illustrated by Hellstedt (1995) through a family systems model. Systemic thinking helps to link sets of various variables sampled from different units of analysis and allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of real interpersonal phenomena immersed in the complex network of immediate and more distant (yet influential) social relations. As a result, systemic explanations may be applicable across different sports, social settings, situational content, and types of interpersonal relationships. Construing knowledge across units of analysis As outlined above, the referential meaning of all potentially meaningful variables should be pursued first; next, the relational meaning or connections between the variables need to be established; and, finally, the systemic meaning as contextual knowledge is construed in ways that allow applications and inform future research. It is critical that these steps are pursued in close relation to the multiple units of analysis from which the variables studied are sampled. A careful attention to the matrix presented in Fig. 1 might guide the researchers in establishing conceptual and methodological rigor during all steps in the scientific inquiry. Researchers need to conduct analyses of empirical data in ways that show the distinctiveness of the specified levels of analysis. Importantly, the connections between these logical levels in conceptualization of interpersonal events and experiences should be addressed (thus, leading to developing relational and systemic meanings). An outcome of these methodological reflections should be a guiding framework in identifying the research problem, designing the study (including operationalization and measurement of variables), and discussing the results and implications. Most importantly, the interindividual level (or athlete–coach dyad) needs to be the driving unit of analysis; thus, all data analyses, interpretations, and creative speculations should ultimately address the dyad. For instance, a study of how coaches’ overt behaviors as reflected in their actions, expressions and manifestations (i.e. the unit of behavior) are perceived by the athlete (i.e. the unit of individual or person) samples important variables, however, in isolation from the interindividual level; thus, without a specific reference to subjective (e.g. meaning), objective (e.g. compatibility) evaluations of the relationship, or both. Notably, the interindividual unit of analysis constitutes the athlete–coach relationship as a higher form of abstraction as compared to overt behavior and perceptions. Clearly, despite measuring coach as well athlete attributes, the behavioral approaches miss out on the interpersonal element of the relationship and as such provide an incomplete picture of the athlete–coach dyad. Naturally, addressing in one study all three kinds of meanings (i.e. referential, relational, and systemic) across all units of analysis (i.e. from a single act or behavior to cultural values or traditions) 134 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 is a very challenging undertaking. Nonetheless, researchers need to make an effort to address the neighboring and the most influential units of analysis to allow for most promising theoretical and practical insights. For example, Poczwardowski (1997), in his exploration of athlete–coach relationships on a collegiate gymnastics team, categorized the emerging major themes into three neighboring units of analysis with the interindividual as the unit of analysis. Specifically, person variables (e.g. personality traits, interpersonal needs), interpretation and meaning were grouped under the individual unit of analysis (i.e. athlete; coach); relationship role, interpersonal interaction, relationship in terms of rewarding outcomes, negotiation, shared meaning, and types of relationships were referred to as interindividual unit (i.e. athlete–coach); and team role, team interaction, team cohesiveness, team negotiation, and norms were identified as group unit of analysis (i.e. team). The decision to include the person and team variables stemmed from the emerging themes in the qualitative analysis and was a function of a prolonged immersion in the team. All mentioned variables (themes) from the three units of analysis were provided with distinctive referential meanings or descriptive definitions (see also Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002). The themes were further linked in the relational meaning; in that a definition of the athlete–coach relationship was developed. Finally, based on the major interpersonal theories (i.e. Homans’ (1950) analysis of human group, Blau’s (1964)] social exchange theory, and Goffman’s (1959) negotiated order theory), the explanatory concepts of task, interpretation and meaning, negotiation, and growth provided a systemic meaning to the study results. As a product of this systematic approach, Poczwardowski and colleagues (Poczwardowski, 1997; Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002) conceptualized the athlete–coach relationship as a recurring pattern of mutual care between the athlete and coach, relationship-oriented activities and interactions, and meaning that athletes and coaches make about this relationship on two levels: instructional (or technical) and social-psychological (or affective). In other words, both sport- and non-sport related contents within the dyad was postulated to be a subject to a dynamic, interrelated exchange and included behavioral (actions, interactions) and cognitive-affective (care and meaning) aspects. Context of this relationship (e.g. group dynamics) seemed an inherent co-determinant of the interpersonal process. Specifically, the formal and informal roles that the coaches and players played on the team influenced the dynamics of dyadic athlete–coach relationships. For example, the more authority a coach had, the less activity, interaction, and care were expressed (i.e. the poorer the relationship) and the higher rank in athlete seniority, the greater activity, interaction, and care (i.e. the better the relationship). Another contextual variable emerged from the fact that coach–athlete relationships revolved and developed around a specific task. That is, without this mutual task (i.e. performance excellence and winning), the relationship would not exist. Four phases in the athlete–coach relationship were identified: prerelationship phase (or recruiting); relationship phase with the following stages: initial, transition, productive, concluding, after-eligibility; and postrelationship phase of two kinds: sentimental or extinct. Finally, not only the athlete–coach relationships influenced the emotional, physical, and social growth of the athlete, but coaches underwent development as well, growing professionally and maturing personally with each relationship they built with their athletes. Once this holistic approach is assumed, it becomes evident that the athlete–coach relationship cannot be fully understood without reference to the multiple units of analysis and the interdependence in the relationships between them. To adequately address the complexity of athlete–coach dyads, the following paragraphs will identify an additional array of issues; thus, further delineating methodological concerns in developing interpersonal theories of the athlete–coach dyad. A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 135 In short, what has been advocated in our review so far is a need for (a) diversifying units of analysis (with a particular attention paid to the interindividual unit of analysis); (b) diversifying the psychological perspective and employing broader social-organizational-cultural frameworks; thus, diversifying interpersonal concepts, including borrowing them from the sister disciplines; and (c) diversifying methodological approaches which allows matching specific research problems with appropriate methodological solutions and systematic approach to scientific inquiry in the emerging field of interpersonal relationships in sports. The fourth and last thread in the proposed diversification of approaches to research on athlete–coach dyads concerns the spectrum of the interpersonal phenomena studied. Diversifying the phenomena under study Moving beyond the task- and performance-related processes If one considers that coaching is an interpersonal process that is largely reflected in the relationship coaches and their athletes develop, then it is important to acknowledge that interpersonal processes involve both sport-specific and non-sport, social-psychological processes (cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions). Researchers within behavioral (e.g. Barnett et al., 1992; Smith et al, 1979) and interactional approaches (e.g. Carron & Chelladurai, 1978) noted the necessity to enrich the research designs with cognitive variables. The most recent reflections on athlete–coach relationships are much more deliberate in pointing out the need to address these issues as a central variable (Jowett, 2005; Jowett & Cockerill, 2002; Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002; Vanden Auweele & Rzewnicki, 2000; Wylleman, 2000), especially in relation to interpretation and meaning. Alternatively, overly emphasizing the cognitive-affective domain may misrepresent ‘the role of situational factors, observable behaviors and social processes’ (Vergeer, 2000, p. 580). Thus, a balance in diversifying the analytical focus needs to be exercised. In addition, reducing a coach’s role to merely one that is focused on increasing athletic performance invites a risk of misjudging the kinds of influence that coaches have on their athletes. Other multiple roles that a coach plays in training and competition (e.g. a confidant, friend, foster parent) also need to be addressed. The mentoring role of a coach is a good example of how athlete–coach relationships transcendent the technical aspects of the sport (see Bloom, Durand-Bush, Schinke & Salmela, 1998; Miller, Salmela & Kerr, 2002). Correspondingly, the quality of athletic and personal experience in relation to the quality and dynamics of the athlete–coach relationship as opposed to performance level issues needs also to be addressed more often (Vanden Auweele & Rzewnicki, 2000; Vergeer, 2000). For example, Poczwardowski, Barott, and Henschen (2002) found productive dyadic athlete–coach relationships on a gymnastics team to be linked to personal growth of both athletes and coaches. In contrast, ineffective relationships (that are underlined by conflict, disagreements and power struggles) have been found to impact on athletes’ well-being (e.g. satisfaction, motivation, determination; see e.g. Jowett, 2003). Accounting for interpretations and meanings Most of the research on the interpersonal perception neglected to address the issue of interpretation and meaning (Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002; Vergeer, 2000). Researchers who are interested in uncovering the casual mechanisms in social phenomena (including interpersonal relationships in sport) need to consider ‘meanings, beliefs, and volitional actions’ 136 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 in the analysis (Maxwell, 2004, p. 7). Athletes and coaches ascribe different meanings to isolated interactions, patterned interpersonal behavior, and the importance of their relationships. In this sense, meaning can be viewed as their holistic and highly dynamic ‘cognitive-affective output’ regarding past, current, and anticipated interpersonal behavior and events. For instance, Poczwardowski, Barott, and Henschen (2002) demonstrated that the values of rewards and costs of an interaction were determined in a subjective process of interpretation that further shaped the meaning attached to the relationship (e.g. viewing it as weak or strong, positive or negative, important or unimportant). Interpretation and meaning are influenced by a number of variables from all units of analysis including the culture of a team, institution, and nation. As Vergeer (2000) noted ‘As culture and subculture influence many aspects of people’s interpersonal functioning—meaning, interpretation, purpose for interacting, interpersonal space, the importance of relationships itself,—it is especially crucial that researchers demonstrate cultural awareness and sensitivity in this area’ (p. 580). Clearly, as much as creating meaning seems to be a psychological phenomenon, future studies need to inspect the major variables in the cultural context in which meaning creation takes place. Again, these and other variables (e.g. the ones that follow in this section) in the interpersonal worlds of athletes and coaches constitute research topography, a map that is meant to guide scientists in examining the actual (as they happen on the sport field) interpersonal phenomena. Diversifying issues and populations Most recent reports (e.g. Burke, 2001; Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Ogilvie et al., 1998; Vergeer, 2000) identify a need to represent more equally both positive (e.g. care, trust, encouragement, support, and cooperation) and negative aspects (e.g. anger, frustration, miscommunication, conflict, crisis, hatred, and verbal, physical, and sexual abuse) in the interpersonal dynamics between athletes and coaches. Coaches have a powerful and unique potential to influence their athletes (for better or worse) and a careful analysis of the entire spectrum of interpersonal behavior (of both coaches and athletes) needs to be undertaken. Diversifying the issues under investigation needs to be accompanied by examining increasingly diverse populations. A number of approaches to understand athlete–coach relationship favored children and youth sports due to an important and most appreciated practical import of the research findings (i.e. reducing attrition and improving the athlete experience in youth sport programs). Meaningful efforts to penetrate different sports separately (e.g. archery; d’Arripe-Longueville, Saury, Fournier & Durand, 2001) and comparatively (e.g. Baker, Yardley & Côté, 2003; Lenzen, Brouwers, Dejardin, Lachi & Cloes, 2004) have been recently published. Additionally, more advanced skill levels have been examined, for example, collegiate (e.g. Conroy & Benjamin, 2001; Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002) and national and international (e.g. d’Arripe-Longueville, Fournier & Dubois, 1998; Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Meek, 2000). Undoubtedly, the body of knowledge regarding the athlete–coach interactions and coach–athlete relationships is growing and this advancement momentum needs to embrace other variables that still await greater diversification. Examples include broader representation of different sports; gender composition of the dyadic relationship (e.g. male coaches–female athletes, female coaches–female athletes); ethnicity, age, and maturity of the participants (both athletes and coaches); skill level (e.g. recreational, international); and the types of relationship studied (e.g. typical vs. atypical; effective/successful versus ineffective/ unsuccessful). A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 137 Reflection on diversification There is an intimate tension between the need to diversify approaches to research on athlete–coach relationships and the need to integrate emerging knowledge into an interpersonal theory of athlete–coach dyads that effectively address the idiosyncrasies of the athletic world. This last section will briefly address ‘managing diversification’ as an effort to maintain specificity of the emerging theoretical models of athlete–coach dyads. Enhancing sport specificity of theoretical models As argued above, the emerging knowledge on athlete–coach relationship (especially at the relational and systemic levels) needs to be informed by major theories from other disciplines such as social psychology, sociology, and the growing scientific field of personal and social relationships. The goals of diversification as well as integration (developing a sport-specific theory) need to guide the researchers in their scientific pursuits. As mentioned, Jowett and colleagues (e.g. Jowett & Cockerill, 2002; 2003; Jowett & Clark-Carter, in press; Jowett & Meek, 2000) creatively combined major interpersonal constructs such as closeness (Berscheid, Snyder & Omoto, 1989), commitment (Rosenblatt, 1977), coorientation (Newcomb, 1953), and complementarity (Kiesler, 1983) to form a diversified and integrated conceptual model of coach–athlete relationships. In a series of connected projects, the evolving theoretical framework was constructively adopted and modified to reflect the specificity of relationships between athletes and coaches. Similar attempts to conceptualize the coach–athlete relationship include the work of Wylleman (2000); Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) motivational model of athlete–coach relationship, and Conroy and colleagues’ (Conroy, 2003; Conroy & Benjamin, 2001; Conroy & Coatsworth, 2004; Conroy & Metzler, 2004) representational models of others and self. Alternatively, Poczwardowski and colleagues (Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002; Poczwardowski, Barott & Peregoy, 2002) allowed first for the major themes in the athlete–coach relationship to naturally emerge from within the sporting environment. In that the construed conceptualization reflected sport specific dynamics, hierarchies, and other types of idiosyncrasies. In later stages of the qualitative analysis, they informed their findings based on Homans’ (1950) analysis of human group, Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory, and Goffman’s (1959) negotiated order theory in a way that maintained the peculiarities of the athletic setting. Future researchers might consider these types of efforts to add to the existing knowledge of athlete– coach relationships and create new conceptualizations; thus, adding to the diversification as a developmental goal of the field of interpersonal relationships in sports. The objective should be a potentially high level of sport specificity simultaneously grounded in understanding of interpersonal relationships more broadly. For instance, conceptual and empirical forces that integrate the athlete– coach relationship with leadership and cohesion concepts (Jowett & Chaundy, 2004) have just started to emerge. Attending to ethical issues Developing interpersonal theory of athlete–coach relationship is a very complex task and our discussion above still does not exhaust all potentially important issues. For example, Vanden Auweele 138 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 and Rzewnicki (2000); Wylleman (2000) called for an ethical reflection to be carefully conducted by interpersonal researchers in sport. Diversifying methodological approaches (including data collection techniques), diversifying phenomena under study (e.g. sexual exploitation), and diversifying populations (e.g. underserved groups) will naturally lead to new ethical challenges and dilemmas. Examples of ethical concerns include conditions of informed consents (e.g. confidentiality), team selection, discovering abusive patterns in interpersonal transactions, activating affective (sometimes very strong) aspects of the interpersonal experience, and using and presenting the research data. Any study that examines emotionally important issues, such as trust, dreams, exploitation and the like deserves most careful ethical decision-making. Reflecting on the quality of knowledge generation Scientists in any field continually attend to major methodological issues such as validity and reliability in quantitative designs and trustworthiness in qualitative designs (e.g. Biddle et al., 2001). Undoubtedly, these considerations need to be carefully examined while diversifying research on coach–athlete relationships and interpersonal dynamics in sports more generally. For example, the retrospective bias involved in self-reports presents additional challenges in certain designs (but not all—phenomenology focuses on the lived experience of a participant; Dale, 1996) and should be continuously addressed (Vanden Auweele & Rzewnicki, 2000). Psychologists (e.g. Schwarz, 1999) have developed ways to approach successfully self-report based projects. The discussed retrospective bias as well as other limitations (e.g. social desirability response; Vanden Auweele & Rzewnicki, 2000), however, should not stop researchers to address more and more challenging research problems while placing an extra dose of healthy skepticism in their interpretation of research findings. Concluding remarks There is a growing need for knowledge on human relations in sports. The most recent, intense examinations of the athlete–coach dyad in its sole focus reinvigorated the field of interpersonal relationships in sports. A deeper understanding of the foundations and contexts of human relationships and a clearer appreciation of methodological, conceptual, and ethical issues are necessary to advance an interpersonal theory of the athlete–coach dyad. The present report aspired to map out major issues to be considered by researchers of interpersonal relationships in sport. We grouped these issues under the concept of diversification. More holistically oriented approaches are needed to diversify the traditional psychological perspective on athlete–coach dyad. Diversified approaches as reflected in a more general framework of scientific inquiry that systematically and creatively embrace a variety of analytical units (while keeping the interindividual unit of analysis in the sharpest focus), that use increasingly diversified concepts and interpretations of other social science disciplines, and that invite diverse methodologies (including qualitative-interpretive paradigms and mixed-method designs) are necessary to overcome limitations in previous research and focus on the promise of the future. A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 139 References Atkinson, G., & Nevill, A. M. (2001). Selected issues in the design and analysis of sport performance research. Journal of Sport Sciences, 19, 811–827. Baker, J., Yardley, J., & Côté, J. (2003). Coach behaviors and athlete satisfaction in team and individual sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 226–239. Barnett, N. P., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach–athlete relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 111–127. Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1986). Interaction characteristics of disengaging, stable, and growing relationships. In R. Gilmour, & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 145–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Beckmann, J., & Kellmann, M. (2003). Procedures and principles of sport psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 338–350. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). Issues in studying close relationships: Conceptualising and measuring closeness. In C. Hendric (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 63–91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Biddle, S. J. H., Markland, D., Gilbourne, D., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Research methods in sport and exercise psychology: Quantitative and qualitative issues. Journal of Sport Sciences, 19, 777–809. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R. J., & Salmela, J. H. (1998). The importance of mentoring in the development of coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 267–281. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brodbeck, M. (1963). Logic and scientific method in research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 44–93). Chicago: Rand McNally. Bryan, A. (1987). Single-subject designs for evaluation of sport psychology interventions. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 283–292. Burke, M. (2001). Obeying until it hurts: Coach–athlete relationships. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 28, 227–240. Carron, A. V., & Bennett, B. B. (1977). Compatibility in the coach–athlete dyad. The Research Quarterly, 48, 671–679. Carron, A. V., & Chelladurai, P. (1978). Psychological factors and athletic success: An analysis of coach–athlete interpersonal behaviour. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 43–50. Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 27–41. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 85–92. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34–45. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Complementary research strategies. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Conroy, D. E. (2003). Representational models associated with fear of failure in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Personality, 71, 757–783. Conroy, D. E., & Benjamin, L. S. (2001). Psychodynamics in sport performance enhancement consultation: Application of an interpersonal theory. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 103–117. Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2004). The effects of coach training on fear of failure in youth swimmers: A latent growth curve analysis from a randomized, controlled trial. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 193–214. Conroy, D. E., & Metzler, J. N. (2004). Patterns of self-talk associated with different forms of competitive anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 69–89. Coppel, D. B. (1995). Relationship issues in sport: A marital therapy model. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology interventions (pp. 193–204). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Culver, D. M., Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research in sport psychology journals: 1990–1999. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 1–15. Dale, G. A. (1996). Existential phenomenology: Emphasizing the experience of the athlete in sport psychology research. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 307–321. d’Arripe-Longueville, F., Fournier, J. F., & Dubois, A. (1998). The perceived effectiveness of interactions between expert French judo coaches and elite female athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 317–332. 140 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 d’Arripe-Longueville, F., Saury, J., Fournier, J. F., & Durand, M. (2001). Coach–athlete interaction during elite archery competitions: An application of methodological frameworks used in ergonomics research to sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 275–299. Duda, J. (Ed.). (1998). Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Dunn, J. G. H. (1994). Toward the combined use of nomothetic and idiographic methodologies in sport psychology: An empirical example. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 376–392. Dzewaltowski, D. A. (1997). The ecology of physical activity and sport: Merging science and practice. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 254–276. Eklund, R. C. (1993). Considerations for gaining entry to conduct sport psychology field research. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 232–243. Evans, L., Hardy, L., & Fleming, S. (2000). Interventions strategies with injured athletes: An action research study. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 188–206. Fisher, L. A., Butryn, T. M., & Roper, E. A. (2003). Diversifying (and politicizing) sport psychology through cultural studies: A promising perspective. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 391–405. Giacobbi, P. R., Poczwardowski, A., & Hager, P. (2005). A pragmatic research philosophy for sport and exercise psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 18–31. Gilbourne, D. (2000). Searching for the nature of action research: A response to Evans, Hardy, and Fleming. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 207–214. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Gould, D. (2002). Sport psychology in the new millennium: The psychology of athletic experience and beyond. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 137–139. Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Hellstedt, J. C. (1987). The coach/parent/athlete relationship. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 151–160. Hellstedt, J. C. (1995). Invisible players: A family systems model. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology interventions (pp. 117–146). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hendry, L. B. (1969). A personality study of high successful and ‘ideal’ swimming coaches. Research Quarterly, 40, 299–305. Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press. Hinde, R. A. (1996). Describing relationships. In A. E. Auhagen, & M. Salish (Eds.), The diversity of human relationships (pp. 7–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior. Its elementary forms (Rev. ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ickes, W. (2000). Methods of studying close relationships. In W. Ickes, & S. Duck (Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships (pp. 157–180). Chichester: Wiley. Jowett, S. (2003). When the ‘honeymoon’ is over: A case study of coach–athlete dyad in crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444–460. Jowett, S. (2005). On repairing and enhancing the coach–athlete relationship. In S. Jowett, & M. Jones, The psychology of coaching. Sport and exercise psychology division (pp. 14–26). Leicester: The British Psychological Society. Jowett, S., & Chaundy, V. (2004). An investigation into the impact of coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship on group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 302–311. Jowett, S., & Clark-Carter, D. (in press). Perceptions of empathic accuracy and assumed similarity in the coach–athlete relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach–athlete relationship. In I. M. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 16–31). London: Thomson Learning. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic Medallists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313–331. Jowett, S., & Meek, G. A. (2000). The coach–athlete relationship in married couples: An exploratory content analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 157–175. A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 141 Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). The Greek coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (GrCART-Q): Scale development and validation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 101–124. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14, 245–257. Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214. Krane, V. (1994). A feminist perspective on contemporary sport psychology research. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 393–410. Lenzen, B., Brouwers, M., Dejardin, R., Lach, B., & Cloes, M. (2004). Comparative study of coach–athlete interactions in mixed traditional Japanese martial art, female amateur track and field, and male professional basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 35, 77–90. Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 883–904. Martens, R. (1987). Science, knowledge, and sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 29–55. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, P. S., Salmela, J. H., & Kerr, G. (2002). Coaches’ perceived role in mentoring athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 410–430. Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393–404. Ogilvie, B. C. (1993). Transference phenomena in coaching & teaching. In S. Sarpa, J. Alves, V. Ferreira, & A. Paula-Brito (Eds.), Proceedings: VIII World congress of sport psychology, Lisbon, June 22–27, 262–266. Ogilvie, B. C., Tofler, I. R., Conroy, D. E., & Drell, M. J. (1998). Comprehending role conflicts in the coaching of children, adolescents, and young adults. Sport Psychiatry, 7(4), 879–890. Ogilvie, B. C., & Tutko, T. A. (1966). Problem athletes and how to handle them. London: Pelham Books. Pease, D. A., Locke, L. F., & Burlingame, M. (1971). Athletic exclusion: A complex phenomenon. Quest, 16, 42–46. Poczwardowski, A. (1997). Athletes and coaches: An exploration of their relationship and its meaning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E., & Henschen, K. P. (2002). The athlete and coach: Their relationship and its meaning. Results of an interpretive study. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33(1), 116–140. Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E., & Peregoy, J. J. (2002). The athlete and coach: Their relationship and its meaning. Methodological concerns and research process. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33(1), 98–115. Poczwardowski, A., Coakley, C., & Kupiec, E. (2004). Predictors of productive athlete–coach relationships in collegiate sports. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, A93. Rosenblatt, P. C. (1977). Needed research on commitment in marriage. In G. Levinger, & H. L. Rausch (Eds.), Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy. Amhurst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press and Exercise. Rushall, B. S. (1977). Two observation schedules for sporting and physical education environments. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 2, 15–22. Rushall, B. S. (1989). Teacher/coach and pupil/athlete observation schedules. In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek, & V. H. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (pp. 343–351). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Salminen, S., & Liukkonen, J. (1996). Coach–athlete relationship and coaching behavior in training sessions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 59–67. Scanlan, T. K., Ravizza, K., & Stein, G. L. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: Introduction to the project. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 54–64. Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports. How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105. Silva, J. M., Conroy, D. E., & Zizzi, S. J. (1999). Critical issues confronting the advancement of applied sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 289–320. Smith, R. E. (1988). The logic and design of case study research. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 1–12. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 59–75. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522–1551. 142 A. Poczwardowski et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 125–142 Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1998). Conducting psychologically oriented coach–training programs: Cognitive-behavioral principles and techniques. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology. Personal growth to peak performance3rd ed. (pp. 41–62). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Sparkes, A. C. (1998). Validity in qualitative inquiry and the problem of criteria: Implications for sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 363–386. Strean, W. B. (1998). Possibilities for qualitative research in sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 333–345. Vanden Auweele, Y., & Rzewnicki, R. (2000). Putting relationship issues in perspective. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 573–577. Vealey, R. (1986). Conceptualization of sport confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 221–246. Vergeer, I. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: From nomology to idiography. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 578–583. Vernon, G. M. (1972). Human interaction. An introduction to sociology (2nd ed.). New York: Ronald Press. Wilmot, W. W. (1975). Dyadic communication: A transactional perspective. London: Addison Wesley. Wylleman, P. (1995). Talented young athletes and the interpersonal relationships in the athletic triangle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: Uncharted territory in sport psychology research. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 555–572.