Potrac, P. and Jones,
R. (2009) Micropolitical workings in semi-professional football,
Sociology
of Sport Journal, 26,
557-577.
[This is part of a larger
project -- including this piece -- to
show
that coaches enough to maintain their identity and interpersonal power
by using
a number of interactive ploys to establish their authority.The work draws upon symbolic interactionist
and other perspectives, and is designed as a critique of the usual
models of
the role of the coach, which are functionalist and abstract].
Coaching is an activity that involves
developing strategies to manipulate players and managers, who are
liable to
resist and compete.Their power cannot
be assumed.They develop what might be
called a micropolitical stance [the examples all refer to conventional
teaching
in classrooms, and the authors insist that this analogy is warranted.Work cited includes Ball].Coaches have to ‘tease, cajole, flatter and
bully best performances from those with whom they work’ (558).Other tactics include ‘the telling of “white
lies”, the presentation of friendly personas and constant “face work”
to make
athletes believe in them and their actions’ (558).These strategies coexist with genuine
attempts to pursue moral ideals.Analysts
refer to the strategic elements as a dark side of
organisational life
[citing Hoyle], going on behind the scenes, as Ball puts it].The conflict that often ensues can itself be
functionally connected with change.Teachers,
and
coaches, vary in terms of how they had
become aware of or ‘read’
this ‘micropolitical reality…and
subsequently “write” themselves into it [quoting Kelchtermans and
Ballet].Strategies can involve conflict
and
collaboration, and the building of coalitions. Goffman’s work on the
presentation of self can also help to explain how individuals build a
public
persona to meet expectations and manipulate perceptions of themselves
[so there
is another modest project here to defend Goffman against charges that
he does
not consider power].
The authors choose one particularly
strategic coach as a case study [and therefore have to defend this
approach—they
decide to refer to this as ‘purposive sampling, where a sample or
single
participant is primarily chosen due to their relevance for the study at
hand…An information– rich case that
manifests the phenomenon to be studied intensely’ (562)] . They used
interpretive interviews which they then embedded into their own
narratives,
selecting excerpts from transcripts and ‘converting them into
researcher –
written stories’ (561).Aware that this
might simply enable researchers to dominate, they kept a reflective log
and
updated it after each interview, in order to identify themes and
issues to
explore in subsequent interviews.They
aimed at ‘data saturation where, as a consequence of constantly
comparing and
revisiting the date or as they were gathered, very little new
information
became evident’ (563).They claim that
this process enabled them to develop understanding ‘the participant’s
point of
view from an empathetic perspective’ (563).However,
they
also hoped to proceed to ‘a higher
level of abstraction
which involved comparing properties to organise them into larger and
more
embracing categories…transcending the
factual data to develop a theoretical explanation’ (563).This involved identifying factors and making
notes of them in order to connect with various theoretical concepts,
especially
those related to micro politics. They
checked with the coach himself, who ‘approved of the final narratives
and
analysis offered’ (563). Their own
narrative could be described as an example of ‘realist tales,
characterised by
the “typicality” of the persons interviewed’ (564). Apparently,
different
narrative
styles and
conventions can be incorporated.They
admit that although the authors’ story is being prioritised, ‘realist
narrative
tales… [are]…A
valuable
tool
for exploring how humans
understand their lives…Adopting such an
approach allowed us to some extent to “see” and “feel” how [the coach
acted]’
(564). They also ‘invite readers to
judge the “goodness” of this paper ...Does
it
provide enough “thick description”?…Does
it enable readers to experience however
briefly moments from the life of the respondents? ...Has the paper enhanced our understanding of
the politically-laden nature of sports coaching?[None
of
these
are particularly rigorous
tests of course, since the reader has no other basis of judging except
the
information provided by the researcher]They
acted
as critical friends for each other as a
further guide.Nevertheless, they admit
that the account ‘is
ultimately the story crafted by us, the authors...
[although there is] solace in Geertz’ (1973)
declaration
that all research stories are fictions’ (573). The
issue
is
whether this is an ‘authentic’
portrayal (575).Finally, the work has
led to ‘wider critical reflection…We
believe the study provides some valuable insights’ (575).[So some real weasels here, ranging from some
naive belief in 'mystic union' to hard headed argument the researchers
have to
develop a research programme].
The coach [Gavin] concerned
was
clearly
aware of micro politics,
and had a rather depressing view of football generally, as full of
conflict
and with no friends.He saw this task is
working with a diverse range of individuals who would be following
their own
interests.For example when an assistant
coach was appointed by the chairman, Gavin was first annoyed and then
determined to consolidate his own position.He
did
this by exposing the inexperience of the
assistant coach, and
then encouraging the players to request to work with him instead.This is an example of how ‘contrived
collegiality’ can be undone by micropolitical strategies.On the surface, Gavin’s face work showed
apparent cooperation in order to conform to what his managers wanted.He saw the players as assets in a micro
political struggle, confirming what the authors already knew about the
role of
athletes in resisting coaches.Gavin’s
own coaching materials have a pedagogic purpose, but also a political
one in
that players could compared him favourably with the new assistant.
However, a senior player [David]
became a
powerful critic.Gavin dealt with this
first by trying to talk to the player to find out the reasons for his
dissatisfaction, while at the same time, he ‘used training
sessions engineered to publicly expose David’s technical and physical
weaknesses,
which he ultimately hoped would lead to David’s marginalisation’ (570).He also recruited three new players who he
already knew and who would support his own approach.They were instrumental in organizing the rest
of the players to report dissatisfaction with David.[It seems to have worked because eventually
David left the club and Gavin was able to avoid responsibility].This episode shows what Goffman meant by ‘a
performance team’ who need both discipline and loyalty (571).
It can be seen that Gavin was aware
that
the existing structure of the club could be interpreted and manipulated.He became a successful coach.He was also able to maintain consensus and
cooperation
among the players.Overall ‘we are sure
that Gavin would agree…Coaching
requires a performance in terms of on – field personal enactment’ (572).
Selected references
Blase,
J. (1991). The
politics of life in schools: Power, conflict and
co-operation.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blase,
J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The
micro-politics of educational leadership:
From control to empowerment.
New
York: Teachers College Press.
Cushion,
C., & Jones, R.L. (2006). Power, discourse and
symbolic violence in professional youth soccer: The case of Albion F.C.
Sociology
of Sport Journal, 23(2),
142–161.
Dennis,
A., & Martin, P.J. (2005). Symbolic interaction and
the concept of power. The
British Journal of
Sociology, 56(2),
191–213.
Hargreaves,
A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The
micro-politics of teacher collaboration. In J. Blase (Ed.), The
politics of life in schools: Power,
conflict and co-operation (pp.
46–72).
Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Jones,
R.L., Armour, K.M.,
& Potrac, P.A. (2003). Constructing expert knowledge: A case study
of a
top-level professional soccer coach. Sport
Education and Society, 8(2),
213–229.
Kelchtermans,
G. (2005). Teachers emotions in educational
reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micro-political
literacy. Teaching
and Teacher
Education, 21, 995–1006.
Kelchtermans,
G., & Ballet, K. (2002a). The micro-politics
of teacher induction: A narrativebiographical study on teacher
socialisation. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 18(1),
105–120.
Kelchtermans,
G., & Ballet, K. (2002b). Micro-political
literacy: reconstructing a neglected dimension in teacher development. International
Journal of Educational Research,
37, 755–767.
Kelchtermans,
G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Teachers’
professional development: A biographical perspective. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 26, 45–62.
Potrac,
P., & Jones, R. (2009).Power, conflict, and
co-operation: Towards a micro-politics of coaching. Quest,
61,
223-236
Schempp,
P., Sparkes, A., & Templin, T. (1993). The
micro-politics of teacher education. American
Educational Research Journal, 30(3),
447–472.
Sparkes,
A.C. (2000b). Auto-ethnography and narratives of self:
Reflections on criteria in action. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 17, 21–43.
Sparkes,
A., & Mackay, R. (1996). Teaching practice and the
micro-politics of self-presentation. Pedagogy
in Practice, 2(1),
3–20.