ABSTRACT
Sports development may be rationalised as a contribution to broad policy outcomes focused on, for example, health and well-being, social cohesion, regeneration and national prestige. However, the outputs from sports development (for example, participation rates, standards of performance and diffusion through the population) are derived from the accumulation and aggregation of myriad episodes and programmes of sport-related activity. In this chapter I deal with the folly of treating this participation profile, and those who lead/coach within it, as homogeneous or susceptible to common policies and practices. Insufficient attention has been paid to models of sports participation, that is, an understanding
of how (and why) individuals progress through the various stages of participation. It is difficult to imagine how any strategic sports development can be conducted without such an understanding of these broad patterns. However, at the operational level, attention to these participant populations is required because they bring within them different participant needs, and the different forms of sports leadership that are appropriate to them. There is a universal acceptance that it is inappropriate to treat all participants in the same way; their abilities, cultural backgrounds, motives, social and educational history, and so on should be acknowledged. However, it is equally inappropriate to assume that sports leaders and coaches are a homogeneous group and capable (or motivated) to operate equally effectively with all participant populations. The purpose of the chapter is to provide evidence that there are clear distinctions between coached populations. It would be inappropriate to spend time on discussing the use of the term sports develop-
ment, but it is necessary to define the scope of the assumptions within the chapter. I have previously described sports development as ‘purposeful intervention to bring about more extensive, better quality, more widely accessible sports participation and/or improved standards of performance’ (Lyle 2008: 217). I also noted that intervention could be categorised at a number of levels – strategic facilitation, organisational and administrative, and delivery. The term has commonly been used to refer to ‘community sport’ or to an ‘introduction to sport for young people’. In this instance it is intended that the term should apply to all sports activity, and not to a subset of occupational activity. There is a presumption (perhaps more in intention than reality) that there is a more or less integrated infrastructure of participation from the toddler’s first gymnastics lesson to Olympic preparation and on to forms of adult recreation. Within this I assume all of
the individual and collective benefits that might accrue from such participation. More importantly, this purposeful facilitation, promotion, development and provision of sport are dependent, for the most part, on some form of active leadership. Sports development refers to various layers of activity (Lyle 2008) that can be differentiated
by their dependence on the coach/leader, and by distinctive practices and behaviours. Sports coaching is domain specific (Lyle 2002; Lyle and Cushion 2010; Trudel and Gilbert 2006) and these domains (categorised using terms such as participation, recreation, high performance, community, development, club, school, elite and talent development) are characterised by distinctive participant motives, intensities of commitment, standards of performance, leadership roles, social expectations and values, organisational arrangements, and delivery patterns. The clear inference to be drawn from this is that sports development is domain specific. Therefore, the chapter will demonstrate that the juxtaposition of environment, motive and form of sport intervention in the coached and coaching populations creates a domain specificity that, at a national level, requires a coherent and coordinated approach. In particular, the understanding of participant populations on which this ‘system-wide’ approach should be based should focus on progression and transition between stages and populations. The chapter is structured in the following way. First, I examine the Participant Development
Model (North 2009) and other conceptions of stages of participation, both to illustrate the range of participant populations and for their strengths and weaknesses as development tools. Second, evidence is presented to illustrate the relative scale of these populations and to interpret the data for the relative emphases placed on these populations. Third, the concept of ‘guided’ and ‘coached’ populations is examined, along with some evidence of the diversity of coaching deployment. Finally, the evidence presented is interpreted in the context of the Coach Development Model (North 2009) and the implications for sports development.
