Youth sport coaches’ reflections on leadership behaviours during games and practices

Youth sport coaches shape the developmental sporting experience for their athletes (Camiré, Trudel, & Forneris, 2014). Specifically, coaches who form individualized, supportive relationships with their athletes can increase the development of personal and social skills (Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2005). In light of the value of these relationships, increasing evidence is prompting the application of leadership theories, such as Transformational Leadership (TFL), in youth sport (Vella et al., 2013). The aim of this study was to explore coach perceptions of how and why leadership behaviours are applied in the youth sport context. Eleven coaches (Mage= 42.3, SD= 15.2) were recruited from competitive youth soccer and volleyball clubs (athletes’ Mage= 15.8, SD= 1.9) in Eastern Ontario and participated in a stimulated recall interview. During the interviews, coaches reflected upon their own coaching behaviours and provided insight into the application of leadership behaviours in youth sport. Responses were prompted by relevant video sequences from recorded practice and game sessions. A thematic content analysis revealed that; i) coaches use a variety of leadership behaviours in youth sport, ii) the use of leadership behaviours vary across sport contexts or settings, and iii) contrasting leadership styles (e.g., transactional vs. transformational) are associated with distinctive coach objectives (e.g., promoting confidence vs. establishing respect). These findings have helped identify gaps within coach education, and provide theoretical insight for applying leadership theories, and more specifically TFL, to help improve the sport experiences of young athletes.

Language, Logos, and Social Ontology: Naturalist and Post-Naturalist Narratives of Human Rationality and Social Reality

I distinguish two ways that philosophers have approached and explained the reality and status of human social institutions. I call these approaches “naturalist” and “post-naturalist”. Common to both approaches is an understanding that the status of mind and its relation to the world or “nature” has implications on a conception of the status of institutional reality. Naturalists hold that mind is explicable within a scientific frame that conceives of mind as a fundamentally material process. By proxy, social reality is also materially explicable. Post-naturalists critique this view, holding instead that naturalism is parasitic on contemporary science—it therefore is non-compulsory and distorts how we ought to understand mind and social reality. A comparison of naturalism and post-naturalism will comprise the content of the first chapter. The second chapter turns to tracing out the dimensions of a post-naturalist narrative of mind and social reality. Post-naturalists conceive of mind and its activity of thought as sui generis, and it transpires from this that social institutions are better understood as a rational mind’s mode of the expression in the world. Post-naturalism conceives of social reality as a necessary dimension of thought. Thought requires a second person and thereby a tradition or context of norms that come to both structure its expression and become the products of expression. This is in contrast to the idea that social reality is a production of minds, and thereby derivative. Social reality, self-conscious thought, and thought of the second person are therefore three dimensions of a greater unity.