Are coach education programmes the most effective method for coach development?

The purpose of this study is to establish whether coaches from a multi-sport context develop most effectively through coach education programmes and whether formal learning is fostering coach effectiveness. A sample of eight qualified male multi-sports’ coaches participated with an age range of 24 to 52 years (M = 32.6, ± = 8.9) and 9 to 18 years coaching experience (M = 12.6, ± = 3.8). Qualitative semi structured interviews were employed, lasting approximately 30 to 60 minutes. The data then underwent a thematic analysis process reducing the data into six overarching themes: values of the coach; the coach’s role on athlete development; forms of learning; barriers regarding coach education; role of governing bodies; coaches career pathway. The findings of the study indicated coaches access a wide range of sources to enhance their practice, but informal learning was preferred (interacting with other coaches and learning by doing). This resulted from numerous barriers experienced surrounding the delivery, cost and access to coach education programmes preventing coaches from progressing through the pathway. However, coaches in the study feel coach education should be a mandatory process for every coach. The findings have implications for policymakers and sport organisations in developing their coach education structure.

Viewing biofilms within the larger context of bacterial aggregations

The ‘Microbial Cities’ vision of bacterial biofilms has dominated our understanding of the development and functioning of bacterial aggregations for the past 20 years, during which active sludge, clumps, colonies, flocs, mats, pellicles, rafts, slimes, zooglea, etc. have been largely forgotten or ignored. Although the medically inspired developmental model of human pathogen biofilms has merits including providing a rationale for the development of anti-biofilm therapeutics, it fails to provide links to other types of bacterial aggregation that are commonly found in a wide range of natural and man-made environments. Possibly as a result, applied and environmental microbiologists tend to avoid the term ‘biofilm’ and use others such as ‘microbial mats’ instead. Here we challenge the simplistic planktonic (independent and free-swimming bacteria)-biofilm (sessile and co-operative bacteria) dichotomy, and consider biofilms within the larger context of bacterial aggregations. By placing biofilms into context, which we see as a continuum of aggregations or communities with varying abiotic and biotic properties, fundamental physical, biological, and evolutionary ecological processes that effect community development and function can no longer be considered unique to biofilms, but may also be important in other aggregations that develop over time and change in nature depending on prevailing conditions. By doing this, we will be better able to distinguish those processes which govern bacterial colonisation and ecological success in a wider sense from those that are unique to particular environments and specialised strategies.

Building bridges between user and designer: co-creation, immersion and perspective taking

Designing for users rather than with users is still a common practice in technology design and innovation as opposed to taking them on board in the process. Design for inclusion aims to define and understand end-users, their needs, context of use, and, by doing so, ensure that end-users are catered for and included, while the results are geared towards universality of use. We describe the central role of end-user and designer participation, immersion and perspective to build user-driven solutions. These approaches provided a critical understanding of the counterpart role. Designer(s) could understand what the user’s needs were, experience physical impairments, and see from other’s perspective the interaction with the environment. Users could understand challenges of designing for physical impairments, build a sense of ownership with technology and explore it from a creative perspective. The understanding of the peer’s role (user and designer), needs and perspective enhanced user participation and inclusion.