Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No.

5-6, December 2010

Identity Formation throughout Varying

Levels of Coaching Expertise
Brad VICKERS • Linda SCHOENSTEDT

I dentity formation considers the evolving individuality within a

community of practice in which the individual may alter personality
characteristics dependent upon the expectations of other community
members (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Therefore, individuals must be able to
manage their image in relation to the other members of the community to
have full access to the knowledge within that community. The purpose of this
study was to analyze the peer interactions of novice, intermediate, and expert
football coaches to gain a better understanding of their peer interactions with
regard to knowledge acquisition. Six coaches participating in a football Nike
Coach of the Year Clinic were selected to participate based on their level
of expertise. Data were collected via clinic observations and audio recorded
interviews that were transcribed and inductively analyzed revealing that a)
socialization; b) appearance; and c) participation, decisions greatly affected
the participants’ interactions and subsequently knowledge acquisition.

Keywords: peer-interaction, identity formation, coaching, football

Introduction

Coaches require interactions with other coaches as an important condition

for learning and as these experiences occur, the knowledge and understanding
of the particular sport develops as well (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006). According to
Lave and Wenger (1991), coaches are able to learn how to behave and interact
with other coaches as they develop through the stages of expertise. Every
individual is different, but as coaches learn the most efficient ways to interact
with each other, they can adapt their identity to a specific situation by adopting
varying personalities. This will depend on the aspects portrayed by the other
coaches involved in the interaction. According to Goffman (1956), this is called
“fronting”, in which individuals tend to act differently in the presence of others
when they observe them as having different social and achievement levels. In

209
 Identity formation

this study, the fronting behavior was observed as coaches learned how to interact
with each other based on their level of expertise.

The framework presented by Lave & Wenger (1991), in which learners

participate in communities of practitioners, was quite evident in the football
coaching clinics that were observed in this study. This type of participation is a
way to increase knowledge and skill, allowing coaching newcomers to develop
toward a level of full participation like the experienced coaches. Further,
the novice, intermediate, and expert football coaches attending the clinics in
this study were observed to have strikingly different patterns of interactions.
Theoretically, the novice coaches make up the outer circle with less knowledge,
the expert coaches make up the inner circle of the greatest knowledge, and
the intermediate coaches fill the void between novices and experts. Three
variables of legitimate peripheral participation will be discussed as they pertain
to the identity formation of novice, intermediate, and expert football coaches
participating in the Nike coaching clinics. The three variables presented by Lave
and Wenger (1991) include socialization, appearance, and participation decisions
of the novice, intermediate and expert football coaches.

Identity formation includes the evolving individuality through learning

within a community of practice in which the individual may alter personality
characteristics dependent upon the expectations of other community members
(Lave & Wenger, 1991). Simply stated, individuals must be able to manage their
image in relation to the other members of the community of practice in order
to have full access to the knowledge within that community. Identity formation
was considered by Wenger (1998) as a way in which individuals discuss how
learning changes them and was observed in this study as the participants worked
on forming their identity as a football coach.

Pertaining to communities of practice, Wenger (1998) expanded on his

previous work with Lave by describing communities of practice as a group of
individuals that learn from each other via mutual engagement in specific activities.
Further, each community of practice is distinguished from other communities
of practice by the domain, the community and the practice (Wenger, 2007).
Based on Wenger’s (2007) characteristics of communities of practice and its
relevance to this study, the domain is defined by a shared interest in the sport
of football. The community involves members who engage in joint activities
and share information related to the domain such as coaches discussing specific
plays and tips to help improve their athletes’ abilities. Last, the practice involves
a practitioner’s ability to interact and share experiences, stories and tools such
as coaches discussing particular situations and how they dealt with it. The
coaching community of practice therefore, is an excellent environment for the

210
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

football coaches to learn from each other by peer interactions. This process
fully demonstrates Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory of legitimate peripheral
participation as newcomers are introduced to the community and leads to more
extensive participation as they gain experience and confidence.

Purpose of Study. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand

the identity formation of novice, intermediate, and expert football coaches
through peer-interactions at coaching conferences in order to gain access to
information from other participants. This research is important because how
coaches form their identity and image is strongly related to how they put this
experience and knowledge into practice with their athletes (Gilbert & Trudel,
2004). As a result, athletes may benefit from positive motivation and better
instruction depending upon their coach’s intellectual confidence, self-image, and
resulting perceived identity. This confidence and knowledge acquisition is largely
dependent upon the degree to which new coaches can interact with experienced
and expert coaches.

Methods
Participants. The participants for this study consisted of six coaches (two
novice, two intermediate, and two expert) that chose to attend a Nike Coach of
the Year Clinic for football coaches in Atlanta, Georgia and Orlando, Florida in
the United States. One coach from each level of expertise based on Berliner’s
(1994) criteria participated at each of the two clinics. Berliner’s (1994) criteria can
be transferred from the related field of teaching and used to identify the coach’s
caliber of expertise. Berliner’s criteria included four levels of expertise. For the
purposes of this study, two levels were combined. Berliner’s criteria included
the following: expert (formal recognition of achievement, 10 or more years of
experience, and the ability to perform their trade effortlessly); advanced beginner
and proficient were combined together in this study to create the intermediate
level (increased experience and knowledge along with enhanced intuition); and
novice (essentially beginners that have knowledge of the rules that govern the
sport but lack the experiences of actually performing the activities on their
own). From a pre-specified group of coaches, the participants at each clinic
were selected using purposeful sampling according to their caliber of expertise
(Patton, 2002). Purposeful sampling is a non-random method of sampling
where “information-rich cases for study in depth are selected. Information-rich
cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central
importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling.
For example, as in this study, if the purpose was to increase the understanding
of how novice coaches acquire the knowledge and identity of an expert coach,
a great deal more may be learned by focusing in depth on understanding the

211
 Identity formation

developmental characteristics of a small number of carefully selected coaches

than by collecting data on a much larger sample. The purposeful sampling
utilized the selection of coaches within the novice, intermediate, and expert
levels of expertise were representative of their level of expertise. Further, the
participants in this study were selected according to their availability throughout
the clinic after sending out a request for participation to registered attendees. The
selection of participants was further delimited by the need to choose coaches
attending both clinics. The number of eligible participants was therefore small
and chosen by the researchers based on Berliner’s criteria (1994) and willingness
to be available for the study.

The novice (N1 and N2) and intermediate (I1 and I2) coaches used
pseudonyms for their names. The notoriety of the expert participants
strengthened the validity of the results and they agreed to use their names rather
than pseudonyms. The two experts were Bobby Bowden (E1) from Florida
State University in Tallahassee, Florida and Tommy Bowden (E2) from Clemson
University in Clemson, South Carolina.

Data Collection Methods. After agreeing to participate in the study, the

selected participants were emailed notification as well as an informed consent
document. Data collection took place at the 2007 Nike Coach of the Year
Clinics in Atlanta, Georgia and Orlando, Florida in the United States. The
data collection consisted of audio-recorded interviews after the clinics and
intermittent observations throughout the three-day clinics. The observations
included “shadowing” the participants throughout the clinic as they attended
presentations, mingled in between sessions, and presented information. Field
notes were utilized to document the experiences of the participants. The
interviews were audio recorded at each respective Nike Coach of the Year
Clinic and were later transcribed for analysis. The interview questions included
15 questions for the experts and 14 questions for the novice and intermediate
coaches (Appendix A & B).
The different questions utilized in this study for the varying levels of
coaching expertise were due to the role the coaches played at the clinic. The two
expert coaches were invited speakers and therefore required a different series
of questions to determine their identity formation methods. The novice and
intermediate coaches attended the clinics to directly enhance their coaching
abilities and subsequently required a different set of questions to determine their
identity formation methods.

Data Analysis. Data were collected through observation and audio-

recorded interviews. The audio-recorded interviews were later transcribed and

212
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

the resulting transcripts were analyzed with the field notes to identify specific
themes. Through the identification of commonalities and disparities of the
lived experiences of the novice, intermediate, and expert football coaches, the
data were later categorized based on level of expertise. Critical insight into
identity formation was achieved through Lave and Wenger’s (1991) discussion
of legitimate peripheral participation. Further synthesis of the data and theme
identification was achieved through Van Manen’s (1990) holistic, selective, and
detailed approaches. Upon uncovering the themes, they were recorded into
spreadsheet format to verify consistencies and abnormalities within and across
levels of expertise as they pertained to the identity formation of the participating
coaches.

Data Trustworthiness. It is important to address the issue of data

trustworthiness in every qualitative study (Patton, 2002). Data trustworthiness
was achieved in this study by minimizing researcher bias through intellectual
rigor. This was accomplished by repeatedly reviewing the data to make sure
the explanations and interpretations reflected the nature of the phenomena,
rather than the researcher’s bias to establish intellectual rigor (Patton, 2002). The
researcher’s personal background in coaching and the notoriety of the expert
coaches would inevitably affect perceptions, but through methods triangulation
and member checks, these perceptions were minimized and allowed for a fair
analysis of the data (Cohen & Manion, 2000). Specifically, methodological
triangulation involves using more than one method to gather data, such as
interviews, observations, questionnaires, and/or other documentation. This
study used all of these methods for cross verification of the data and information
from the clinic participants. The purpose of triangulation in qualitative research
is to increase the credibility and validity of the results. In an effort to further
increase data trustworthiness, a peer debriefer was used (Drapeau, 2002; Lincoln
& Guba, 1995). Lincoln & Guba substituted reliability and validity with the
parallel concept of “trustworthiness”. The concept of trustworthiness was
further defined as including four aspects: credibility, transferability, dependability,
and confirmability. These aspects were specific methodological strategies for
demonstrating qualitative rigor in this study such as the use of member checks
when coding, categorizing, or confirming the data from the participants (Lincoln
& Guba, 1995). The peer debriefer ensured that the researcher’s knowledge
and understanding of the coaching profession would help prevent a biased
explanation of the results.

Findings
Legitimate peripheral participation is a theoretical explanation of the
power that either affords or prevents an individual’s articulation and interaction

213
 Identity formation

within a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Lave and Wenger
(1991) further explained legitimate peripheral participation as “a way of gaining
access to sources of understanding through growing involvement” (pg.37) in a
community of learners. It is therefore beneficial to increase the understanding of
approaches used by individuals to enhance legitimate peripheral participation as
a means of gaining access to knowledge and understanding within a community
of practice.
In regards to legitimate peripheral participation, this study was based on
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) acknowledgement of identity formation as a process
of membership into a community of practice. This includes an evolving identity
where individuals increase knowledge and understanding within that community.
Identity formation of novice (N1 & N2), intermediate (I1 & I2) and expert (E1
& E2) football coaches in this study directly correlated with their status within
the coaching community (assistant, head high school, head college) and were
observed via socialization, appearance and participation decisions.

Socialization. The socialization process for many coaches begins when the
participants were athletes, and typically continues throughout the coaching career
as coaching skills, knowledge, and values are often learned through listening
to and observing more experienced coaches (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006). This
process of learning extends into the coaching clinics as well, with the coaching
participants becoming socialized into the community of practice. In relation to
identity formation in this study, the coaches portrayed different personalities
as their socialization process created a progression from silent observation to
active participant.

Trudel and Gilbert (2006) described socialization as a process of listening

to and observing more experienced coaches, which was quite evident in the
actions of the novice coaches at the clinics. While socialization has several
approaches, it can be understood from this study that socialization is based on
a functionalist approach. The functionalist approach assumes that learning is
based on observation and therefore socialization occurs as the learner’s immerse
themselves into the knowledge and skills necessary to function in a particular
community of practice (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Wentworth, 1980 in Zeichner
& Gore, 1990). This approach directly relates to Trudel and Gilbert’s (2006)
description of socialization as well as Lave & Wenger’s (1991) assumptions of
identity formation in which relationships in a community of practice are formed
via observations of more experienced professionals.

As demonstrated in this study, N1 and N2 became socialized into the

community of practice through the observation of and the interaction with the

214
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

identities exhibited by the other football coaches. N1 shadowed his head coach
between presentations and silently observed his interactions with other coaches.
When asked about his experiences at the clinic, he commented that “he (the
head coach) knows a lot of people, so he talks to everyone”, but “to be honest
with you, there wasn’t a whole lot of time to do any of that.” However, N1
did observe the other coaches on his team talking between sessions and also
recalled what they were talking about. He remarked that “I know one of the
coaches on my staff talked to a guy from Charleston County, and they were
talking about the offensive line, and he got his number, so I think he’s going to
call him and get in touch with him.” Thus, N1 utilized the socialization process
by being present and watching the other coaches to determine which behaviors
and topics of conversation were acceptable, as well as gaining familiarity with
the other coaches through informal introductions.

The experience levels of the intermediate coaches affected how they

interacted with other coaches at the clinic. I1, for instance, would actively interact
and discuss coaching issues with the coaches from his own team. However,
when it came to coaches from different teams, I1 took more of an observational
role as he observed and listened to his head coach talk with other coaches. I1
commented “my head coach and my offensive coordinator talked to some other
coaches, but I just didn’t know them so I didn’t really talk.” He further remarked
“my offensive coordinator has been coaching for 18-20 years so he knows just
about everybody, and my head coach, he knows a lot of people, so I just sit
and listen to them.” This type of activity comes from what Lave and Wenger
(1991) describe as a period in which inexperienced professionals use their
colleagues to practice relationship formation. I1’s relative lack of experience
when compared to I2, allowed him to use his knowledge from previous clinics
to interact with other coaches from his team, but he remained quiet and listened
during discussions with coaches from other teams. Therefore, I1’s development
and socialization were evident as he observed more experienced coaches and
practiced what he had learned with the coaches on his team.
The progression towards expertise demonstrated by I2 was evident in his
active participation in discussions on a variety of topics with coaches both from
his team and other teams. He observed and listened to the clinic presenters (E1
and E2) during their presentations and then stayed after their completion to
gain more insight into their coaching philosophies. Further, I2 was often seen
discussing game play and strategy with others, as surrounding coaches silently
observed and listened to him interact with his peers. With much more experience
at coaching clinics than I1, I2 was quite comfortable interacting with all of the
coaches at the clinic. I2 commented, “It’s great to just go in there (the clinic)
and talk to other coaches.” He further stated that at first, he “didn’t understand

215
 Identity formation

that there was more to it than just some guys talking about football.” Some of
the less experienced coaches that worked for I2 had similar perceptions because
they didn’t see the benefit of going “if it’s not something they’re really interested
in.” Listening to other coaches throughout the clinic, I2 became increasingly
socialized into the community as his understanding of the game of football
increased, regardless of coaching style. He explained that “if I’m a farmer and
you’re a farmer and you’ve got cotton and all I’ve got is corn, we’re still farmers,
so we can help each other learn and you might just hear something you can use
if you listen.”

The experts appeared to have no problem talking with the other participants,
but their notoriety made the mainly high school participants intimidated to
approach them as an equal community member. While the high school coaches
listened intently to the experts, the experts gave their presentation and then
left the facility. Tommy Bowden (E2) commented that he doesn’t hang around
at the clinics where he presents as he stated “I got in, sat in the back and just
looked at some of my notes, I spoke, and I walked right out and left.” With a
high school coaching community at the clinic, the experts served as the pinnacle
of the socialization process. The experiences and success of the experts enabled
them to enhance the socialization of the clinic attendees as they listened to and
observed the college coaches E1 and E2. The experts gave their presentations
and then left shortly thereafter.

Socialization was demonstrated differently in the football coaching

community of practice, depending on the level of expertise. The relatively
inexperienced novice coaches observed the interactions of other coaches to gain
a better understanding of the social community of practice as well as gain new
information that could be infused into their daily activities. The novice coaches
did not have the experience and therefore a well-developed coaching identity to
feel comfortable talking directly with the intermediate and expert level of coaches
at the clinic. They just wanted to listen to the ideas and strategies discussed by
their head coaches and others. The less experienced I1 demonstrated a high
comfort level in his interactions with coaches from his team, but became quiet
and only observed the interactions of coaches from other teams. Alternatively, I2
had plenty of experience with coaching clinics and was receptive to discussions
with coaches on his team as well as other coaches in the high school community.
Through listening, observing, and interacting with other coaches to gain a better
understanding of football and coaching, I2’s socialization was evidenced in his
attempt to learn more from all coaches and not just the ones with which he
could directly identify.

216
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

The experts were asked to attend the clinics as presenters and therefore
instigated much of the socialization within the high school football learning
community attending the clinic. The clinic participants were less experienced
and attended the clinic to hear the experts speak and in so doing, developed their
respective coaching identities further. Since the experts form the inner circle of
the football coaching community, much of the socialization resulted from the
other coaches listening to the expert coaches’ presentations in order to gain new
information and understanding. As the less experienced coaches observed and
listened to the more experienced coaches present their information, increased
socialization and identity formation occurred as they gained more knowledge on
football and coaching.

Appearance. Lave and Wenger (1991) acknowledged that activities,

tasks, functions, and understandings are inseparable aspects of a community
of practice. As a practitioner assumes and undertakes these aspects, identity
is formed and reformed. Further, as individuals become more involved in the
community of practice, elements of their identity develop that allow them
increased access to the knowledge and understanding of the community. This
concept was no different at the football coaching clinic as novice, intermediate,
and expert coaches modified their appearance to “fit in” with the football
community members with which they associate.

The novice coaches in this study had a noticeably different appearance at

the clinics. While N1 wore a t-shirt bearing the name and mascot of the high
school he coached with sweatpants and tennis shoes, N2 wore a collared polo
shirt with the team logo on the left chest with khaki shorts and tennis shoes.
The significance of their clothing represented their efforts to demonstrate their
allegiance to their team as well as an athletic status via athletic apparel and tennis
shoes. N2 commented, “we all had to wear the same shirts so other coaches will
know where we’re from.” The noticeable team logos on the shirts also served to
inform the other coaches of their status within the community as some teams
are recognized as being very successful. N2 further remarked that “you go to
coaching clinics and you don’t want to hear how great their school is because
more than likely, we can look at their shirts and we’ll know how great they are.”

As it pertains to their physical appearance, N1 was clean-shaven with short

hair brushed to the side, while N2 had a shaved head with a few millimeters
of stubble and a goatee (mustache and beard trimmed to a point at the chin).
Neither coach was wearing a championship ring, which reflected their novice
status as well as their team’s level of success. It is important to note that the
dissimilar appearance of the two novice coaches stemmed from the different
backgrounds of the coaches. While N1 played ninth grade football and then

217
 Identity formation

baseball throughout high school career, he was now was head coach of the
baseball team as well as an assistant football coach. N2 was a collegiate football
player and therefore was slightly more prone to demonstrating the appearance of
the football coaches whom he knew and modeled. N1 remarked about coaching
football, “I’m a baseball player so I’m pretty new to the football part of it.”
This demonstrated his self-perception as a baseball-oriented coach with a less-
developed identity as a football coach.
Similar to N2 and many of the other coaches present at the clinics, the two
intermediate coaches emerged to have the “coach buzz-cut” physical appearance
as well. The “coach buzz-cut” appearance is widely portrayed in the media as
a hard-nosed militant style coach that demands maximum effort at all times.
With a drill sergeant type of attitude, closely cut or shaved head, and lightly
trimmed facial hair, the “coach buzz-cut” is understood as demanding respect
and maintaining full control over his players. Both intermediate coaches had
goatees, with I1 having a completely shaved head and I2 having hair that was too
short to brush in any particular fashion. Both coaches were also wearing collared
polo shirts with the team logo on their left chest and tennis shoes, while I1 was
wearing jeans and I2 khaki pants. The short hairstyle and facial hair commanded
a sense of respect within the high school coaching community as a symbol of
power and authority, with the team logo on the shirts as a proclamation of their
team loyalty. When asked about his attire at the clinic, I1 commented, “my head
coach wanted us to wear team shirts to show unity.” Further, I2 remarked that
“it’s kinda like a brotherhood” and “it tells people we are proud of our team.”
There were over 1,000 coaches in attendance at the clinics and their appearance
was typical of the vast majority.

Dipping tobacco also emerged as a common ritual as I1 was noticed to

have dipped several times throughout the day. This was similar to many of the
other coaches present at the clinics as empty dip-cans were all around and many
of the other coaches were constantly looking for spit-cups. The facial hair and
the closely cut/shaved heads combined with the dipping tobacco exuded a sense
of toughness that was not only evident with the two intermediate coaches, but
with many of the clinic participants as well.

The two expert coaches were strikingly different in regards to their

wardrobe, but were quite similar in other areas. While Tommy Bowden’s (E2)
grey Clemson sweat-suit with tennis shoes directly correlated with the majority
of other presenters, Bobby Bowden (E1) was wearing a suit jacket and slacks
with no necktie. Bobby’s wardrobe may be the result of his earlier speaking
engagement at the Fellowship of Christian Athlete’s (FCA) morning breakfast,
but it was uncertain as to his “normal” dress code for speaking engagements.

218
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

Both expert coaches were clean-shaven with short hair combed to the side.
Tommy and Bobby had progressed past the intimidating facial hair as they paid
great attention to recruiting and media relations. The identity formation of the
expert coaches had reached yet another level in comparison to the novice and
intermediate coaches in terms of overall outward appearance.

Tommy Bowden (E2) commented, “coaching football is about wins and

losses” and “if you don’t win more than you lose, you won’t be around long.”
Demonstrating previous wins, both expert coaches were also wearing very large
championship rings, which further validated their status as speakers at the clinic and
as expert football coaches. These rings were quite obvious with large gemstones
in the university colors and engravings on the sides. Championship rings are
prized by coaches as evidenced by the participants at both clinics discussing the
size of the expert coaches’ rings. The participants also discussed the rings other
clinic attendees were wearing demonstrating their state championship victories,
but much of the attention was focused on the size of Bobby Bowden’s (E1)
National Championship ring. N2 commented, “coach is a good ole’ boy” and
when you talk to him, you can’t help but notice his National Championship ring
which is something everyone wants—as a player or coach.”

Essentially, the level of expertise combined with the coaching level (high
school or college) influenced the appearance of the coach. N1’s self-perception
as a baseball coach and former baseball player altered his appearance when
compared with the other high school football coaches as a more clean-cut,
approachable representation. The football playing experiences, along with the
self-perception of strictly being a football coach, was reflected in the typical
“tough guy” appearance of N2 and the two intermediate coaches. They
outwardly portrayed these characteristics with shaved heads and goatees,
which afforded them high levels of respect at the high school level where their
coaching role is more authoritative. Alternatively, the expert coaches had more
of an approachable appearance that enhanced their role as collegiate head
coaches. With that in mind, the collegiate coaches placed a high emphasis on
media relations and recruiting in which the “tough guy” image was less likely to
be beneficial.

Participation Decisions. Participation decisions represented the selection

process that determined the clinic presentations that the coaches attended.
With eight to ten presentations occurring at the same time throughout the
day, clinic participants had to choose the presentation they wanted to attend
during a particular time slot. Identity formation was therefore observed through
participation decisions in the sense that coaches attended presentations in an
attempt to gain information from the speakers and to develop their community

219
 Identity formation

of practice through their appearance at those presentations. Their attendance

emphasized the coaches’ attempts to further establish a community connection
through the direct association with other coaches in the community via “groups
of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic,
and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an
ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002; pg. 4).
The dynamics of the social world of legitimate peripheral participation
involves the interactions of newcomers and old-timers and thus involves the
development of identities, changing forms of membership, and changing
perspectives and relations of power (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As the coaches
developed expertise at the Nike clinics, these changes were observed to pertain
to them as well. Through attendance at specific presentations, other coaches
saw the participants as being interested in specific football topics. This served
to initiate conversations and secure familiarity to increase acceptance into the
coaching community. The novice coaches and the less experienced I1 seemed
to be concerned with increasing their relevance within the coaching community
as they attempted to create a distinct identity. For instance, the novice coaches
and I1 only attended clinic presentations that directly pertained to their exact
coaching description such as offense or defense. This demonstrated their strict
reliance on specific rules of strategy and their attempts to portray themselves
as a particular type of coach as well. In fact, N1 commented at the beginning
of the clinic, “I will attend all of the offense presentations if you need to find
me because I need to see what coaches on the offensive side of the ball are
doing.” N2 remarked, “there was minimal defensive stuff, and I’m not even
gonna waste my time going.” As the novice coaches and I1 aligned themselves
with like-minded coaches, they could blend into the community and quickly gain
acceptance as a defensive or offensive coach as they focused on that particular
aspect of the game.

I2 attended both defensive and offensive sessions without regard to

his background as an offense coach. He commented that he liked to attend
offensive and defensive presentations to not only gain information from the
presenters, but to “talk with different coaches and see what they are doing.” I2
also explained this as gaining a better understanding of coaching football, not
just the X’s and O’s of certain plays. He said, “whether it was all offense, all
defense, or that every speaker was directly speaking to some concern that would
help me, I can learn from them.” The fact that I2 attended presentations he felt
he could most benefit from demonstrated his progression towards expertise and
evolved identity formation as he no longer attempted to exhibit a certain image
as an offense or defense coach, but attempted to incorporate various aspects of
both mindsets to improve his team’s performance.

220
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

The expert coaches were not included in this section of analysis because
they were presenters at the clinic and therefore only attended the presentations
they were asked to give. Further, the clinics were intended for the high school
level coach and would not be relevant to the collegiate level expert coaches. The
expert coaches did, however, attend at least one coaching clinic each year that was
more exclusive and tailored to their caliber of professional development needs
and legitimate peripheral participation. Although there were no presentations at
their coaching clinic, the experts talked to each other to gain insight on coaching
and football. Tommy Bowden (E2) remarked, “We’ll share ideas down there, sit
down at dinner and talk about how different coaches do things.”

While the less experienced coaches attended certain presentations in an effort

to display a specific image as an offensive or defensive oriented coach, the more
experienced coach already had a sense of his identity as his attention shifted to the
presentations that would offer the most learning and understanding of football
and coaching. The two novice coaches and I1 illustrated this as they attended
the presentations that fell directly in line with their coaching responsibilities.
They did this in order to learn more about their specialty areas and importantly,
to increase their status within the sub-population of that specific offense or
defense coaching community. I2 on the other hand appeared less concerned
with his status as an offense/defense coach and more concerned with gaining
information and understanding football. He chose to attend presentations based
on the benefits he felt would be gained from the speakers regardless of specialty
area. Therefore, it was perceived that the relevance placed on attending a certain
type of presentation to enhance an image among peers was diminished as the
experience level of the coach increased.

Conclusion
Socialization is a process of listening to and observing more experienced
coaches (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006). This level of socialization differed in the
participants of the Nike coaches’ clinics depending on their level of expertise.
Identity formation results from an evolution of an individual’s personality
characteristics, knowledge development, and self-image as well as his or her
socialization process. The novice coaches in this study spent a large amount
of time silently observing and listening to the conversations of other coaches
throughout the coaching clinics as they became socialized into the football
coaching community. While the less experienced I1 was comfortable discussing
topics and receiving feedback from coaches on his team, his interactions with
coaches from other teams was similar to the novices as he silently observed
and listened to their conversations. Alternatively, I2 had more experience with
coaching clinics that was evident in his interactions and comfort level with

221
 Identity formation

different coaches. Often, there were other coaches listening to and observing I2
discuss game play and strategy. The experts were asked to speak at the coaching
clinic and therefore were at the core of the football coaching community. While
the experts commented that they spend time discussing and listening to other
coaches at the collegiate and professional levels, their singular role at the two
Nike coaching clinics was to present information to the high school coaches and
increase their level of expertise as it related to X’s and O’s. That both experts
were instrumental in furthering the socialization and identity formation of the
clinic participants was an added bonus.

As the coaches progressed in expertise, there was a clear development of

identity within the coaching community through shifting appearance, socialization,
and choice of attendance at specific presentations during the clinics. The level
of expertise, the type of coach, and the coaching level (high school or college)
impacted the appearance that the coach displayed in order to gain acceptance
into the community. N1’s self-perception as a baseball coach and former baseball
player altered his appearance when compared with the other high school football
coaches. His clean-cut, approachable representation differed from that of a
“strict” football coach that was reflected in the typical “tough guy” appearance
of N2 and the two intermediate coaches. N2 and the two intermediate coaches
displayed these characteristics by having shaved heads and goatees, which gave
them a disciplinary look and a level of respect at the high schools where their
coaching role was more authoritative. This was evidenced by N2’s comments,
“that a couple of them [their athletes] are tougher kids who were on the streets
and you have to show that you are tough by following your plan and not give-in
to them because that’s just the way of getting across to the kids.” However, the
expert coaches were concerned more with media relations and recruiting which
was critical to success and therefore appeared clean cut and approachable rather
than maintaining the “tough-guy” image. The experts’ approachable appearance
and proven success was displayed by their large championship rings and afforded
them respect as winners rather than the tough disciplinarian appearance that was
perceived necessary at the high school level for a chance at success.
The identity formation of the less-experienced coaches was also manifested
through the specific presentations that were attended in an effort to display an
image as an offensive or defensive oriented coach. This was demonstrated by
N1, N2, and I1 throughout the coaching clinic. As coaches gained experience
and established their identity, they became more confident by branching out and
attending presentations that offered the most learning and understanding of
football regardless of their specialty. These coaches no longer felt like outsiders
looking in. Therefore, the acquisition of experience led to a higher comfort level
with interactions in the coaching community, regardless of team or specialty

222
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

area. This allowed for a diminished dependence on attending a certain type

of presentation to enhance a particular image among their peers. Increased
importance on the variety of knowledge and understanding that might be gained
from the clinic became a key to the coaches’ overall development. However,
without encouragement and confidence, the novice coaches and some of the
intermediate coaches might be limited in the development of their coaching
identities.
The novice coaches formed the outer circle in the community of practice
as they were observing the intermediate and expert coaches for guidance in
navigating the coaching profession. The intermediate coaches formed the middle
circle with an increased perception of self within the coaching community.
The expert coaches ultimately formed the inner circle, or bulls-eye so-to-speak
(figure 1), as the other coaches were aiming to hit that goal. It is therefore clear
that coaches should be mindful of their progression within the community
of practice and make themselves available for discussions with all community
members in an effort to maximize peer interactions. This will allow for further
development of knowledge and understanding of the coaching profession as it
is truly an evolving process without end. It must be noted however, that without
an invitation to participate and interact by more experienced coaches, many
novice coaches and newcomers will be left on the outside looking in.

Perhaps one of the major conclusions that can be taken from this study
is an implied responsibility for intermediate and expert coaches to play a bigger
role in the socialization and identity formation of novice coaches. Much of
the coaching education research points to a need for the mentoring, identity
formation, and legitimate peripheral participation of individuals new to coaching.
It is not enough for more experienced or expert coaches to simply speak at clinics
and seminars. They must take an active role in communicating and interacting
directly with less experienced coaches. This might be accomplished through
interactive forums or panels, coaching town halls, or informal receptions where
the more experienced coaches seek out less experienced coaches and actively
engage them in conversation. Talking with clinic attendees instead of at them, as
is the case in many clinic formats, would increase the developmental process for
all coaches. Clinic organizers too, have a responsibility to broaden the educational
experiences of these novice coaches by providing multiple avenues of learning
from experienced or expert coaches. Clinics have a unique opportunity to provide
more than X’s and O’s to their participants by giving the clinic participants an
opportunity to grow in self-awareness and identity formation.

223
 Identity formation

As a result, coaches on the outside looking in must be given every

opportunity to advance themselves in all of the areas required of a coach. The
most experienced coaches are experts by virtue of their own unique experiences
in the coaching community.

Figure 1. A Venn diagram illustrating the relationship between Expert,

Intermediate, and Novice coaches.

224
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

Appendix A
Expert Interview Protocol

1. Will you describe some of the tasks you perform in a typical day of coaching?

2. Of those tasks, list the top two tasks you feel would benefit your coaching
practices if you could improve them.

3. What knowledge, understanding, or skills that are needed to perform those

two tasks?

4. What do you feel your current level of proficiency is regarding the two tasks
(competent, proficient, or excellent)?

5. How would you try to increase learning as it relates to the tasks?

6. What activities, if any, have your performed in the past to increase knowledge
and skills (read, attend clinics or workshops, observe other coaches)?

- Which ones have been the most helpful?

7. Describe how those activities affected your coaching abilities.

8. Describe your reasons for attending the clinic in Atlanta?

- Would you attend other clinics (why or why not)?

9. If you were going to design and ideal coaching clinic, what would you include
and why?

10. As you were presenting at the clinic, can you describe any new ideas you
might have formed in regards to improving your coaching?

11. How will those ideas help improve your coaching?

12. Did any of those ideas change the way you think about your coaching and
the way you perform your duties as a coach (if so, how)?

13. What do you typically do in a coaching clinic?

14. Did you meet or talk to anyone you would like to continue talking with?

225
 Identity formation

Appendix B
Interview Protocol

1. Describe some of the tasks you perform in a typical day coaching.

2. Of those tasks, further describe the top two tasks you feel would benefit
your coaching practices if you could improve them.

3. Describe the knowledge, understanding, or skills that are needed to perform

those two tasks?

4. What do you feel your current level of proficiency is regarding the two tasks
(competent, proficient, or excellent)?

5. How would you try to increase learning as it relates to the tasks?

6. What activities, if any, have your performed in the past to increase knowledge
and skills (read, attend clinics or workshops, observe other coaches)?

7. Describe how those activities affected your coaching abilities.

8. Tell me which aspects of the clinic were used to create new ideas, techniques,
or tactics that will help you to improve your coaching strategies?

9. Explain what you learned in the clinic that might help you become a better
coach?

10. What types of coaching strategies were discussed that you perceive will have
an effect on your coaching when you return home?

11. Did you meet anyone you would like to continue talking with?
12. Who did you meet that was most helpful, informative, or acted as a mentor?

13. If you were to design an ideal clinic, what would you include and why?

14. Describe your reasons for attending the clinic?

- Would you attend other clinics (why or why not)?

226
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

References
Berliner, D.C., Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances, in Mangieri,
J., & Block, C., eds., Advanced educational psychology: Creating powerful thinking in
teachers and students: diverse perspectives, Harcourt Brace College, Fort Worth, TX,
1994, 161-186.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis,
Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Heinemann, London, Ch. 1-3.

Carpenter, F. (1996). Teacher-coaches speak out. Teaching secondary physical education

(Champaign, Ill.); Dec 1996; vol. 2; iss. 6; pp. 10-11.

Clark, M. A. (2000). Who’s coaching the coaches? In J. R. Gerdy (Ed.), Sports in

schools: The future of an institution (pp. 55-65). New York: Teacher’s College
Press.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in education. Routledge. p. 254.
(5th edition).

Conn, J., & Razor, J. (1989). Certification of coaches: A legal and moral respon-
sibility. The Physical Educator, 43(6), 161-165.

Conroy, D. E. (2006, February). Enhancing motivation in sport. Psychological

Science Agenda 20(2). Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/
science/psa/conroy.html

Drapeau, M. (2002). Subjectivity in Research: Why Not? But… The Qualitative

Report, Volume 7, Number 3 September, 2002

Fredericks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated

with beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations [Electronic
version]. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 698-713.

Darst, P. W. and Pangrazi, R. P. (1991). Dynamic physical education for secondary school
students: Curriculum and instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Decker, J.I. (1986). Role conflict of teacher/coaches in small colleges. Sociology of

Sport Journal. Champaign, IL. Dec 1986; 3, (4).

227
 Identity formation

Drewe, S.B. (2000). An Examination of the Relationship Between Coaching and

Teaching. QUEST, 52 (79-88). National Association for Physical Education
in Higher Education.

Figone, A. J. (1986). Teacher-coach burnout: Avoidance strategies. Journal of

Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 57(8), 58.
Gilbert, W.D. & Trudel, P. (2004 December 1). Analysis of coaching science
research published from 1970-2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
75(4), 388-399.

Goffman, E., The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, University of Edinburgh

Social Sciences Research Centre, Edinburgh, 1956.

Hardin, B. (1999). Expertise in teaching and coaching: A qualitative study of physical

educators and athletic coaches. Florida State University.

Hill, M. (2007). Achievement and athletics: Issues & concerns for State Board of
Education. The State Education Standard, 8(1), 22-31.

Houseworth, S. D., Davis, M. L., & Dobbs, R. D (1990). A survey of coaching

education program features. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance,
61(5), 26-30.

Jones, R., Potrac, P. & Ramalli, K. (1997). Where sport meets physical education: A
systematic observation of role conflict. Paper presented at the AISEP’97 World
Conference, Singapore, 4-6th December.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E., Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Locke, L. F., & Massengale, J. D. (1978). Role conflict in teacher/coaches. Research

Quarterly, 49(2), 162-174.

Massengale, J.D. (1981). Role conflict and the teacher/coach : Some occupational
causes and considerations for the sport sociologist. In S.L. Greendorfer and
A.Yiannakis (eds.), Sociology of Sport: Perspectives (pp.149-157). West Point, NY:
Leisure press.

228
 Sport Science Review, vol. XIX, No. 5-6, December 2010

Morford, L. (1996). Coping with teacher-coach conflict. Teaching Secondary Physical

Education. Champaign, IL. 2 (6).

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2006). Quality coaches,
quality sports: National standards for sport coaches (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.

Patton, M. Q., Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd Edn, Sage Publi-
cations Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002.

Rogoff, Barbara and Lave, Jean (eds.) (1984) Everyday Cognition: Its Development in
Social Context. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Sage, G. (1987). The social world of high school athletic coaches: Multiple role
demands and their consequences. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 213-228.

Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. Coaching and coach education; in Kirk, D., Macdonald,D.,
& O’Sullivan, M., eds., The Handbook of Physical Education, Thousand Oaks,
CA, 2006, 516-526.

Van Manen, M., Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive
Pedagogy, State University of New York Press, New York, 1990.

Wenger, Etienne (1998) ‘Communities of Practice. Learning as a social system’,

Systems Thinker, http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.
shtml. Accessed December 30, 2002.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M., A guide to managing knowledge:
Cultivating communities of practice, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, 2002.

Wenger, E., Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System, http://www.

co-il.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml, 1998, Accessed June 5,
2009.

Wenger, E. Communities of practice: A Brief Introduction, http://www.

ewenger.com/theory/, 2007, Accessed June 5, 2009.

Wentworth, W. M. (1980). Context and understanding: An inquiry into socialization

theory. New York: Elsevier North Holland.

Zeichner, K., & Gore, J., Teacher socialization, in Houston, W.R., ed., Handbook
of research on teacher education, Macmillan, New York, 1990, 329-248.

229
 Identity formation

Brad VICKERS, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Mississippi State University in Starkville,

MS. His research is focused on coaching education and the development of coaching
expertise. Recent publications include such topics as Peer Interactions of Coaches,
Coaching Development, and Perceptions of Self-Development of Various Levels of
Coaching Expertise. This research enables Dr. Vickers to gain a better understanding of
the factors that increases coaching success in order to disseminate that information to
future coaches. E-mail: bv44@msstate.edu

Linda SCHOENSTEDT, Ph.D., is an associate professor of Sport Studies at Xavier

University in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Her research agenda includes coaching education,
new media in sport, and consumer/spectator behaviors. Dr. Schoenstedt recently had
two articles published: Schoenstedt, L.J. & Reau, J. (2010). “Running a Social Media
Newsroom: A Case Study of the 2009 Cincinnati Flying Pig Marathon”. International
Journal of Sports Communication”, 3 (3), 377-386 and Lee, D., Cianfrone, B. A., Byon,
K. K., & Schoenstedt, L. (2010). “An examination of the relationships among personal
values, team identification, product involvement, product attributes, and purchase
intention of licensed team merchandise”. International Journal of Sport Management,
11, 517-540. Dr. Schoenstedt also serves as chair of the Sports Steering Committee for
the National Association of Sport and Physical Education (NASPE/AAHPERD) and is
a professional member of the North American Society of Sport Management (NASSM).

230