A coaching philosophy is a set of basic principles that guide a coach in decision-making and behavior. Opposite of a dictatorial philosophy, the humanistic philosophy is athlete-centered, promoting coach/athlete collaboration with the primary aim of supporting athlete autonomy. Past studies on coaching philosophies have relied on self-report techniques and none of these studies have included distance running coaches. No studies have explored distance running coaching philosophies through the theoretical lens of humanism despite evidence supporting that athletes may prefer being coached through a humanistic philosophy and the NCAA distance running environment may conducive to this philosophy. The goal of this case study was to explore the coaching philosophy and methods of a successful men’s NCAA distance running coach and describe to what extent the stated coaching philosophy and coaching methods were humanistic.
This study illuminates what may be the most effective philosophy for men’s NCAA distance running and may also assist with coaching education programs, coaches, and athletes in gaining a greater awareness and understanding of coaching philosophies; all of which could enhance performance.
Method:
Sources of empirical data collection in this study include coach interviews, athlete interviews, training session field observations, and authentic artifacts. Methods were validated through a pilot study. This study is the first to use training session observations and artifact collection in the research of coaching philosophies.
Analysis/Results:
Utilizing qualitative data analysis software, data was triangulated and analyzed through open coding, axial coding, and selective coding regarding the extent in which it did or did not parallel the humanistic coaching philosophy. Three major themes emerged: 1) coach/athlete interpersonal communication and relationships, 2) coach/athlete decision-making, and 3) the coach’s definition of success. Findings indicated that the coach’s stated philosophy and methods were humanistic regarding having close interpersonal coach/athlete relationships, open communication, collaborative decision-making with athletes, and an athlete-centered, process-oriented definition of success, but were not humanistic in relation to communicating more with the best runners on the team and employing dictatorial methods in planning interval and tempo workouts independent from athletes.
Conclusions:
Major findings of the study include implications that in areas where coaches are authoritative, athletes may develop a dependency on the coach impacting their ability to self-regulate. Moreover, study conclusions demonstrate that coaches should make a concerted effort to build interpersonal relationships and communicate more with athletes who are novices in their program, particularly freshmen making the transition from high school to college.