Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hall, Edward; Gray, Shirley (2017)
Publisher: SAGE
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: C813, C600
We agree that there is a lack of clarity in the sports coaching literature about philosophical pragmatism, but this is inevitable when there is a lack of consensus in the literature of philosophical pragmatism itself. In the writing of classical pragmatists there are a “plurality of conflicting narratives” (Bernstein, 1995 p.55). For instance, Charles Sanders Peirce acknowledged notable theoretical divergence between his pragmatism and that of William James (Hookway, 2012). In fact, Peirce viewed the availability of nuanced approaches as a mark of the vitality of this school of thought. After all, pragmatists value diversity, they accept that current thinking, hypotheses and practices may require revision – they are flexibly minded. Such revision, however, must be built upon well-reasoned doubt (Hookway, 2012). In other words, a clear argument is necessary if an alternative proposition is to be considered. In this vein, though we have sympathy for the thrust of his argument, and support calls for more “legitimate philosophical thinking” and “empirical philosophical enquiry” (Cushion & Partington, 2016 p.863), our aim in this commentary is to address a lack of clarity and utility in some of Jenkins’ propositions about philosophical pragmatism and sports coaching.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Cushion C and Partington M. A critical analysis of the conceptualisation of 'coaching philosophy'. Sport Educ Soc 2016; 21: 851-867.
    • 2. Grecic D and Collins D. The epistemological chain: practical applications in sport. Quest 2013; 65: 151-168.
    • 3. Olsson C, Cruickshank A and Collins. D. Making mentoring work: the need for rewiring epistemology. Quest 2016; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1152194.
    • 4. Stoszkowski J and Collins D. Communities of practice, social learning and networks: exploiting the social side of coach development. Sport Educ Soc 2014; 19: 773-778.
    • 5. Giacobbi PR Jr, Poczwardowski A and Hager P. A pragmatic research philosophy for applied sport psychology. Sport Psychol 2005; 19: 18-31.
    • 6. Corbin J and Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing ground theory. London: Sage, 2008.
    • 7. Bryant A. Grounded theory and pragmatism: the curious case of Anselm Strauss. Forum: Qual Soc Res 2009; 10: Art. 2.
    • 8. Gibson K. Two (or more) feet are better than one: mixed methods research in sport and physical culture. In: Young K and Atkinson M (eds) Qualitative research on sport and physical culture. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, 2012, pp.213-232.
    • 9. Onwuegbuzie A and Leech N. On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int J Social Res Methodol 2005; 8: 375-387.
    • 10. Scho¨ n D. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. NY: Arena, 1991.
    • 11. Buman MP, Yasova LD and Giacobbi PR Jr. Descriptive and narrative reports of barriers and motivators to physical activity in sedentary older adults. Psychol Sport Exer 2010; 11: 223-230.
    • 12. Collins D, Martindale A, Burke V, et al. The illusion of competency versus the desirability of expertise: seeking a common standard for support professions in sport. Sports Med 2015; 45: 1-7.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article