Overall, the significance of the thesis lies in the ways in which it has illuminated the different challenges, ambiguities, tensions, and relational complexities that characterise coach educators’ attempts to practically work with and influence others. These included, informal and formal hierarchies between coach educators, unfamiliar collegial relationships, performance evaluation mechanisms, casualised contracts, and the desire of individual participants to obtain, protect and advance a particular reputation as a coach educator. The importance of impression management is most visible with these. However, these social performances also recognised a number of other factors and features. As a collective representation, the front establishes proper setting, appearance. On one level they reflected their understanding(s) of the audience’s (i.e., coach learners’) expectations and the various contextual constraints that they encountered.
The analysis showed that the participants used various individual and collective impression management strategies in their everyday work. Their insights were further bolstered using Crossley’s (2011) relational sociology. The analysis process was primarily informed by Goffman’s (1959) and Hochschild’s (1983) dramaturgical theorising. This required subjecting phases of data generation, interpretive sense-making, and the representation of findings to ongoing cycles of emic and etic interpretation. A phronetic-iterative approach to data analysis was adopted. We all know there’s a price to pay for a making bad first impression: A limp handshake conveys low confidence a wrinkled suit makes you seem lazy oversharing. In total, 151 hours of observational data and 55 hours of interview data were generated. Data were rigorously generated with eight coach educators via a methodological bricolage that consisted of cyclical semi-structured interviews and participant observations. In building upon the initial insights provided by Allanson, Potrac, and Nelson (2019), this thesis breaks new ground by providing original, ethnographically grounded knowledge concerning the individual and collective social interactions that constitute coach educators’ practice(s). Consequently, there is a paucity of research that addresses the everyday realities of interactively doing coach education work from the perspective(s) of coach educators. organisational members to engage collectively in impression management behaviour at a meso (team) level to produce macro-level organisational phenomena such.
To date, research into formal coach education has tended to prioritise the perceptions and experiences of learners.
0 kommentar(er)
