This art icle was downloaded by: [ Manchest er Met ropolit an Universit y] On: 04 Novem ber 2012, At : 13: 26 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Sport, Education and Society Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ cses20 The analysis of athletic performance: some practical and philosophical considerations Lee J. Nelson a a & Ryan Groom b Universit y of Hull, UK b Manchest er Met ropolit an Universit y, UK Version of record f irst published: 06 Jun 2011. To cite this article: Lee J. Nelson & Ryan Groom (2012): The analysis of at hlet ic perf ormance: some pract ical and philosophical considerat ions, Sport , Educat ion and Societ y, 17: 5, 687-701 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13573322. 2011. 552574 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- andcondit ions This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem and, or cost s or dam ages what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial. Sport, Education and Society Vol. 17, No. 5, October 2012, pp. 687
701 Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 The analysis of athletic performance: some practical and philosophical considerations Lee J. Nelsona* and Ryan Groomb a University of Hull, UK; bManchester Metropolitan University, UK This article presents a hypothetical dialogue between a notational analyst (NA) recently schooled in the positivistic assessment of athletic performance, an ‘old-school’ traditional coach (TC) who favours subjective analysis, and a pragmatic educator (PE). The conversation opens with NA and TC debating the respective value of quantitative and qualitative methods of performance analysis. Having considered their arguments from a-distance, PE offers a philosophically underpinned point of view that helps to practically reconcile NA’s and TC’s opposing positions. While primarily focusing on practical issues relating to the analysis of athletic performance, PE contends that ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ approaches can be legitimately used in combination. Such a stance would appear in-line with a pragmatic philosophical perspective, which by focusing on practical issues embraces pluralistic methods. It is hoped that this dialogue will facilitate further philosophical and practical debate to generate knowledge that could enrich coaches’ understanding by presenting an approach to performance analysis that is more realistic for practitioners. Keywords: Performance analysis; Coaching practice; Pragmatism; Mixed methods; Metaphysics Performance analysis has recently been located firmly within the coaching process (Hodges & Franks, 2002; Lyle, 2002; Stratton, Reilly, Williams, & Richards, 2004; Groom, Cushion, & Nelson, 2011). The ongoing analysis of athletic performance is vitally important as it assists in the collection of performance information that can be fed-back to athletes in an attempt to enhance their understanding and competitive performance (Maslovat & Franks, 2008). Indeed, the ongoing analysis of performance provides vital information for the prescription of training and rehabilitation programmes (Carling et al., 2008). Furthermore, analysis of the opposition can help the coach to identify key strengths and weaknesses of forthcoming opponents, information that can be used to inform team selection and tactical strategising (O’Donoghue, 2010; Groom et al., 2011). In team sport settings, analysis of performance during actual competition allows the coach to make vital substitutions and tactical decisions that aim to change the course of a game (Carling et al., 2005). Post-match analysis, on the other hand, provides the coach and athletes with an opportunity to reflect on how well they performed and whether they were able to *Corresponding author. Department of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, East Yorkshire, UK. Email: l.nelson@hull.ac.uk ISSN 1357-3322 (print)/ISSN 1470-1243 online/12/050687-15 # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.552574 Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 688 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom effectively implement their pre-performance strategy (Carling et al., 2009). In addition to this, team sport coaches also analyse athletes for the purpose of talent identification and recruitment (Carling et al., 2005). So performance analysis is an applied topic with a high degree of salience for coaching practitioners. Indeed, it has been suggested that performance analysis, ‘is now widely accepted among coaches, athletes and sport scientists as a valuable input into the feedback process’ (Drust, 2010, p. 921). Over recent years, it has been argued that there is a much greater need for objective and unbiased performance assessment in coaching (e.g. Hughes & Bartlett, 2008; Maslovat & Franks, 2008; Carling et al., 2009). This is based on research evidence that suggests that coaches’ information processing and recall abilities are limited (Franks & Miller, 1986, 1991). In an attempt to remedy this situation, a number of quantitative methods have been identified and developed with the specific intent of assisting the objective analysis of athletic performance. The three most widely acknowledged methods are arguably: notational analysis, time-motion analysis and quantitative biomechanical analysis. These comprise what Hughes and Bartlett (2008) term performance analysis. Hughes (2005) defines notational analysis as an ‘objective way of recording performance so that key elements of that performance can be quantified in a valid and consistent manner’ (p. 1). The construction of a notational analysis system requires consideration of the four key elements (i.e. player, position, action and time) that are fundamental to all such systems, the intended level of analysis (i.e. team, subsidiary unit and individual level), and how the required information is going to be gathered (Hughes, 2008a; Carling et al., 2009). In relation to the final point, Hughes (2008b) proposes that data can be collected through three system types, namely: scatter diagrams, frequency tables and sequential systems. Through applying these principles, a notational system can be constructed that allows for the collation of statistical information relating to the execution of actions and the evaluation of tactical aspects of performance (Carling et al., 2005). Time-motion analysis focuses on ‘raw features of an individual’s activity and movement during a match without attempting any qualitative evaluation’ (Carling et al., 2005, p. 4). This type of analysis fundamentally seeks to understand the physical component of sporting performance (O’Donoghue, 2008). While it is possible to manually record data of this nature, there are a growing number of companies offering video-based systems and global positioning technologies that record players’ movement patterns (Carling et al., 2009). The objective statistical information generated by these systems can help with the identification of work-rate profiles, fitness levels and on-set of fatigue, amongst other factors (Carling et al., 2005). Whereas motion analysis focuses on gross movement patterns, quantitative biomechanical analysis is concerned with the finer features of sports technique (Hughes & Bartlett, 2008). A detailed technical analysis of sports performance, from a biomechanical perspective, can involve the measurement of numerous variables (e.g. linear and angular displacement, velocities, accelerations, forces, torques, Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 Re-conceptualising performance analysis 689 energies and power) and consideration towards the study of movement coordination (Bartlett, 2008). While there is increasing support for the use of objective data, gathered from quantitative methods, others have continued to highlight the importance of subjectively based qualitative analysis of athletic performance. Indeed, this remains a key component of what coaches do (Carling et al., 2005; Bartlett, 2008; Kerwin & Irwin, 2008). While certain authors have come to question the accuracy of this form of analysis, Lees (2008) argues that when appropriately applied ‘qualitative biomechanical analysis can provide the learner with detailed feedback to improve performance’ (p. 162). Knudson and Morrison (2002) suggest that the strength of good qualitative analysis resides in its being interdisciplinary in nature. Indeed, whereas quantitative biomechanical analysis is unable to address the many factors affecting performance, qualitative movement analysis completed by an informed practitioner is said to integrate understanding about biomechanics, motor development, motor learning and pedagogy (Knudson & Morrison, 2002). Qualitative analysis, however, is not solely restricted to the assessment of movement. Team sport coaches can engage in the qualitative analysis of technical, tactical, physical and behavioural aspects of sporting performance (Carling et al., 2005; Groom et al., 2011). Qualitative analysis, according to these arguments, then, would also appear able to capture the complex nature of sporting performance. The aim of this paper is to question the value of pitching the subjective and objective analysis of athletic performance against one-another. This stance would appear symptomatic of the sporting research more generally, where there has been, at times, a tendency to believe that quantitative and qualitative approaches are philosophically incommensurable. Indeed, those scholars who operate within one set of metaphysical assumptions have rejected the principles guiding research conducted within the other paradigm. In this regard, metaphysical debates have tended to divide the sporting community into two camps, namely positivism and constructivism (Gratton & Jones, 2004). Such debates have been accompanied by the belief that quantitative methods belong to positivistic research and qualitative methods are the tools of those conforming to a constructivist approach to scientific inquiry. Here, we argue that the concepts and ideas of pragmatic philosophy might usefully bring the thinking of these two camps slightly closer together, as within a pragmatic framework both quantitative and qualitative methods can methodologically coexist. In this respect, this paper presents an attempt to tackle a dilemma that has philosophically bedevilled the sporting literature. The presented argument acknowledges that the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods often leads to a greater understanding than either approach can achieve alone (Creswell & Garrett, 2008). Furthermore, it recognises that coaching practitioners and scholars will inevitably utilise the full range of tools available to them when engaging in performance analysis related inquiry. The significance of this paper, then, lies in its ability to generate further academic discussion into the combining of quantitative and qualitative methods of performance analysis and how this can legitimately occur when operating within the Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 690 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom pragmatic paradigm. We believe that dialogue of this nature might serve to generate knowledge that could usefully enrich coaches’ understanding by presenting an approach to performance analysis that is more realistic for practitioners. This is not to suggest that we are the only scholars in support of such a proposition. Rather, we believe it is important to raise and consider this issue, so that one approach is not privileged at the expense of the other. In this regard, we believe that the central tenants of this debate could usefully contribute to methodological discussions within the study of coaching more broadly. In order to explore the notion of combining quantitative and qualitative performance analysis methods in further detail, we open by providing a brief discussion regarding the philosophy of science. This would seem important, as the cultivation of philosophical concerns is critical to becoming a reflective practitioner, as opposed to a mere technician (McNamee, 2005). Here, we contend that the field might usefully draw upon Morgan’s (2007) recent interpretation of the paradigm debate, which has been widely acknowledged within the mixed methods literature (e.g. Plano Clarke & Creswell, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010). Indeed, it provides an alternative account that could usefully extend existing thinking. The following section provides a brief summary of Morgan’s argument. We would advise those desiring a more detailed understanding to read Morgan’s original article. Using mixed methods: an alternative paradigm debate and philosophical approach According to Morgan (2007), any discussions about the combining of quantitative and qualitative methods must first start by examining the dominant paradigm. In this respect, Morgan (2007) uses the term paradigm to convey, ‘systems of beliefs and practices that influence how researchers select both the questions they study and methods that they use to study them’ (p. 49). He goes on to argue that this is consistent with Kuhn’s preferred use of the term, but points out that systems of beliefs and practices have recieved little attention in methodological discussions, which have instead largely focused on epistemological stances. In light of this alternative conceptualisation, Morgan (2007) demonstrates how those advocating qualitative research evoked a paradigmatic shift to legitimise the value of their preferred methods. Morgan (2007) suggests that by shifting the debate to a metaphysical level, qualitative researchers became able to challenge the dominance of quantitative research that characterised much of the 1960s and 1970s. During this period there was no commonly accepted label for the paradigm that dominated scientific inquiry. To position themselves within a legitimate methodological position, challengers labelled the existing approach as the positivist paradigm. Morgan (2007) argues that Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) early comparison between positivism and a competing paradigm (later known as constructivism) is perhaps the best example of this. Lincoln and Guba (1985) contrasted positivism and naturalistic inquiry as having Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 Re-conceptualising performance analysis 691 fundamentally different ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. While Morgan recognises that Lincoln and Guba (2005) have extended their system to consider the paradigms of critical theory, post-positivism and participatory research, he contends that each of these are routed in ontological issues. As such, he chooses to term this collective line of thinking the metaphysical paradigm. In light of the above, Morgan (2007) contests that the metaphysical paradigm’s hierarchical top-down approach imposes limits on every aspect of this conceptualisation. In this sense, he suggests that ontological assumptions about the nature of reality impose constraints on epistemological beliefs about the nature of knowledge, which limit methodological choices about knowledge generation. Moreover, Morgan argues that while it is claimed that methodological problems can be addressed through an ontology driven understanding about the philosophy of knowledge, this belief system ultimately ‘remains disconnected from practical decisions about the actual conduct of research’ (p. 64). Indeed, he points to Guba and Lincoln’s (2005) claim that methods cannot be associated with a given paradigm, which causes him to question what practical guidelines the metaphysical paradigm provides to those conducting research. Given the aforementioned limitations of the metaphysical paradigm, Morgan offers pragmatism as an alternative position to resolve these issues and therefore replace the, at present, dominant metaphysical paradigm. Indeed, while discussions about pragmatic philosophy and mixed methods research are not new, the pragmatic approach has resultantly, over more recent years, become increasingly regarded as the philosophical partner for using mixed method (Creswell, 2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010). Whilst Morgan’s critical argument highlights the limitations associated with the metaphysical paradigm, he nonetheless recognises that these discussions have at least served to move the debate beyond the mechanical consideration that had previously dominated research discussions. However, he contends that contemporary metaphysical discourse needs to be reconsidered if understanding is to develop. Indeed, he suggests that the omission of pragmatism from discussion within the metaphysical paradigm maybe explained by the fact that pragmatists take a broader view of the metaphysical issues. For example, Morgan (2007) explains that Dewey proposed a revised conceptualisation, ‘that focused on the experience of action in the world, rather than the existence of either a world outside these experiences or experiences outside such a world’ (p. 68). In this respect, Morgan argues that those responsible for legitimatising (e.g. via the publication of research methods texts) research paradigms have historically excluded pragmatism, which evidences the social and political nature of research methods discourse. In opposition to the top down approach that underpins the metaphysical paradigm, Morgan (2007) states that: . . . we need to devote equal attention to studying both the connection between methodology and epistemology and the connection between methodology and methods. Furthermore, we need to use our study of methodology to connect issues in epistemology with issues in research design, rather than separating our thoughts about the nature of knowledge from our efforts to produce it. (p. 68) 692 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 Whereas many research methods text demarcate quantitative and qualitative research with deductive and inductive reasoning respectively, Morgan contents that: . . . any experienced researcher knows that the actual process of moving between theory and data never operates in only one direction. Outside of introductory textbooks, the only time that we pretend that research can be either purely inductive or deductive is when we write up our work for publication. During the actual design, collection, and analysis of data, however, it is impossible to operate in either an exclusively theory- or data-driven fashion. . .The pragmatic approach is to rely on a version of abductive reasoning that moves back and forth between induction and deduction*first converting observations into theories and then assessing those theories through action. (pp. 70
71) Similarly, while qualitative research emphasises subjectivity and quantitative research objectivity, the pragmatic approach recognises both stances: . . . the usual forced dichotomy between subjective and objective is an equally artificial summary of the relationship between the researcher and the research process. Thus, although one often hears arguments about the impossibility of ‘complete objectivity’, it is just as hard to imagine what ‘complete subjectivity’ would be . . . In a pragmatic approach, there is no problem with asserting both that there is a single ‘real world’ and that all individuals have their own unique interpretations of that world. Rather than treating incommensurability as an all-ornothing barrier between mutual understanding, pragmatists treat issues of intersubjectivity as a key element of social life. (Morgan, 2007, pp. 71
72) Drawing on Dewey’s notion of inquiries, Morgan contends that understanding about research methodology is no different to any form of human endeavour. In reversing this argument, we contend that the above discussions can be equally applied to coaching practice, as the analysis of performance is like another other form of inquiry. However, we also appreciate that Morgan’s propositions could have significant implications for the scientific investigation of coaching practice. Indeed, we have seen the advocacy and combing of mixed methods within the coaching literature, which has started to generate useful understanding about not only what coaches do, but why they engage in certain behaviours (e.g. Potrac et al., 2000; Potrac et al., 2002; Smith & Cushion, 2006). Therefore, the pragmatic stance might offer a philosophical framework in which such investigations can operate. At this point, however, we would like to stress that it is not our intention to square the philosophical circle by advocating that everyone conform to a pragmatic stance. Rather we are mindful that discussions about inquiry should consider philosophical debates, especially when attempting to mix qualitative and quantitative methods. Morgan’s propositions are undoubtedly critical of the current discourse and challenge it to its core. Indeed, it raises fundamental questions and offers an alternative lens through which to reconsider the paradigm debate and methodological choices. Engaging with this alternative view can be somewhat unsettling as it questions traditional orthodoxy. Writing this paper has certainly challenged our thinking and caused us to reflect on our own philosophical and methodological beliefs. While we are not advocating this alternative paradigm be wholeheartedly accepted, it provides a Re-conceptualising performance analysis 693 novel view that we believe requires further exploration by those within the discipline of sports science. Having considered philosophical arguments relating to mixed methods research, we will now present how coaching practitioners could practically use both quantitative and qualitative methods, within a pragmatic framework, to analyse athletic performance. Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 Coaches pragmatic use of qualitative and quantitative methods In summary, there appears to be a growing shift towards the use of quantitative methods and technology, which is serving to further polarise conceptual understanding about the subjective and objective analysis of athletic performance. In acknowledgement of this development, the remainder of this paper focuses on providing a practically related dialogue that questions the usefulness of any such divide. This is achieved through a hypothetical conversation between three schools of thought. These roles are played by the notational analyst (NA), traditional coach (TC) and pragmatic educator (PE). The decision to construct these thoughts in the form of a dialogue was largely inspired by reading the work of Jones (2007) who effectively employed this format to explore two alternative conceptualisations of coaching. In outlining his purposes, Jones states that: Although imaginary, the aim of the conversational format is to assist reflection and understanding, not only of the arguments made but of our personal stance in relation to them. It is in this invitation to reflect on the evidence encased in the differing viewpoints presented that the strength of the arrangement lies. (p. 161) Drawing on the work of Ely et al. (1997), Jones (2007) then argues that the presentation of alternative perspectives, through dialogue, can create a ‘third space’ whereby a hybrid theory can be formed. In the presented dialogue, NA represents the increasing number of sport science graduates educated in the positivistic science of notational analysis. TC, on the other hand, is a caricature of a (TC) who is set in his ways. Having not been schooled in the science of sport, these practitioners can be sceptical of its relevancy. For these coaches, the subjective analysis of performance is the only source of useful information. At this point, it should be noted that these positions have been purposely exaggerated to help emphasise the arguments presented. Having said that, these individuals are not completely divorced from reality, in-as-much-as they represent an amalgam of views we have actually encountered in the field. The presented dialogue opens with a conversation between NA and TC, following their attendance of a conference session on the quantitative analysis of athletic performance. Intrigued by the unfolding conversation, PE listens intently from a-distance. Recognising the inherent strengths and limitations of both arguments, PE ‘plucks-up’ the courage to express his own perceptions and experiences, in hope that they might bring both NA’s and TC’s thinking slightly closer together. While we do not expect or even desire all readers to be in agreement with the presented alternative 694 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom perspective, PE represents a philosophically informed ‘middle ground’ that attempts to reconcile these two opposing positions: Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 NA: (As he walks out of the conference hall towards the refreshments, NA excitedly turns to TC) So what did you think about that session? Some of the presentations were really good weren’t they? TC: (TC laughs) What a load of old rubbish. Every year you get these abstract presentations that are so far removed for the world of sport. As a coach, what am I supposed to do with what was delivered? How am I supposed to integrate all of those stats into my coaching practices? Honestly, some of those sport scientists don’t have a clue what it’s really like to coach. NA: That’s a bit harsh. In this day-and-age it’s essential that elite level coaches utilise quantitative methods of performance analysis. TC: Why’s that then? NA: Well for a start, research demonstrates that coaches aren’t able to accurately recall athletic performances (Franks & Miller, 1986, 1991). In addition to this, it’s all about gaining that extra percentage in terms of performance isn’t it? Advances in training methods require coaches to monitor their athletes’ performances more closely, which means utilising precise and objective measurements. TC: Yer alright (He says in a sarcastic tone). I don’t know about you, but I actually work in professional football (Said in a way to suggest that NA is obviously a little naive and lacking real-world experience). You can’t be telling me that these statistical advances are what the game needs. Some of the great coaches of the 60s, 70s and 80s managed to get on OK without them. Brian Clough could read the game just fine without a computer. I’ve had one of those match analysis companies come in and give me a demonstration. It’s like playing a bloody computer game. It all looks nice and fancy, but there are just too many stats and it’s just, well it’s not football is it! Incorporating video into your coaching practices, I’ll give you that. That’s a step in the right direction. Video can be a really useful coaching tool. With video the players get an opportunity to watch their performance back and to consider what they did right and wrong. Video really is a powerful tool in my experience (Groom et al., 2011). But I’m not sold by all these statistics. It’s not for me at all. NA: Well that sounds a bit short-sighted to me (He says defensively). I’ve studied this at university and my sport science background has taught me that quantitative methods offer the most appropriate and accurate means of analysing athletic performance. It’s the future and all coaches will have to embrace this technology, otherwise they will be left behind. Coaches can’t be relying on their subjective opinions. They just aren’t accurate. There is evidence! PE: (Intrigued by what he has just heard, PE comments) I hope you don’t mind, but I couldn’t help overhearing your conversation. Like both of you, I’ve given this topic a fair bit of thought and consider it to be a vital part of what coaches do. Interestingly, I actually teach this topic to undergraduate sport science and coaching students at a local university (NA’s eye light-up. PE’s credentials capture his attention. TC, on the other hand, looks unimpressed and gives PE an uninviting look). I’ve also assisted with the delivery of performance analysis at the elite level, in a number of sports (TC’s ears ‘prick-up’. He appears to be more interested now). Would you mind if I join in the discussion? Re-conceptualising performance analysis NA: I’d be interested to hear your views. TC: Fine by me, can’t see why not. Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 NA: (In an attempt to win PE’s support, NA quickly jumps in) As a coaching scientist, surely you can’t deny that qualitative analysis is fundamentally flawed? For a start, the findings of this approach aren’t even objective! PE: As a coaching scientist and educator, I too believe that we should take into account the findings of academic research. You are correct NA in stating that there are a small number of papers demonstrating that elite level coaches are unable to accurately assess competitive performance (Franks & Miller, 1986, 1991). Indeed, Maslovat and Franks (2008) have helped us to make sense of these findings. For example, they have pointed-out that personal bias, the experiencing of emotions, and a limited focus of attention, can each impact an observers perception of performance. In addition to this, they have also argued that committing and receiving data to-and-from memory are complex processes, so interference can inevitably occur. I think that it’s important that practitioners be aware of this evidence and give it some serious consideration. It definitely presents a legitimate argument for collecting objective information through the use of quantitative methods such as notational, time-motion, and quantitative biomechanical analysis. NA: Exactly (NA looks pleased with himself)! TC: How did I know that you were going to support him? You scientists are all the same. You just don’t understand what it’s like in the real world of coaching (TC appears frustrated at this point and looks like he’s losing interest in the conversation)! PE: Hold on a second TC. While I feel that practitioners need to be aware of these findings, I also think that we need to be cautious about ‘writing-off’ coaches’ subjective opinions. Like you, I too have worked with elite level coaches that are able to provide an extremely accurate and comprehensive analysis of performance. I must admit that I’ve been really impressed by the level of detail that some coaches can provide and the integrated nature of their thinking. While I suspect that you haven’t read their work, you might find yourself in agreement with Knudson and Morrison (2002). These authors have argued that while qualitative analysis of performance is a subjective process, this doesn’t mean it has to be vague, arbitrary or unorganised in nature. In fact, they go on to suggest that to be effective, qualitative analysis requires ‘extensive planning, information from many disciplines, and systematic steps’ (p. 5). My experience is that coaches invest a lot of time into thinking about and conducting qualitative analysis of their performers. TC: Too right (TC is relieved to hear that PE is, in his mind, starting to make practical sense)! I’ve spent years trying to understand my sport and what factors contribute towards effective performance. As I watch my athletes perform, I break their performance down and consider how their execution of each component contributes to the overall outcome. Sometimes it’s not easy for me to verbalise, but I know good and bad performances when I see it. This hasn’t happened over night you know. It’s taken me a long time to get to this level! Years of watching athletes perform, working under mentor coaches, speaking to other practitioners and through simple trial-and-error (Jones et al., 2003, 2004; Irwin et al., 2004; Abraham et al., 2006; Schempp et al., 2007). However, I think that I’ve now developed a fairly good ‘blue-print’ that informs my analysis of performance, but I’m always ‘tweaking’ it. 695 696 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 PE: Returning to your original point NA, I take issue with the notion of scientific inquiry needing to be purely objective in nature. I can’t help but wonder, is it really possible to completely detach yourself from the process of inquiry? Sure, you can utilise methods such as notational analysis, motion analysis and quantitative biomechanical analysis to make the collection of data more ‘objective’, and I agree that there are times when this is needed, but isn’t it ultimately you who decides which factors to analyse, what definitions to apply, and what aspects to concentrate on when collecting and analysing your data? As such, isn’t the quantitative analyst heavily involved in the process? NA: Well I guess (He says looking quite taken-a-back), but ultimately we are concerned with not wanting to contaminate our findings. We don’t want to influence them in any way. Human limitations mean that subjective analysis is ultimately inconsistent and inaccurate. PE: Well that’s one view. Knudson and Morrison’s (2002), though, have contend that qualitative analysis is arguably the most important means through which kinesiology professionals can improve their clients’ performance. They go on to suggest that qualitative analysis enables a practitioner to provide an integrated and interdisciplinary assessment that takes a multitude of factors into consideration. So it would appear that a counter argument exists. Given your comments, I suppose the positivistic concepts of validity and reliability are both important to you then NA? NA: Yes of course! They are the corner stones of my analytical approach. And this is where I take issue with the qualitative analysis of performance. I’ve always thought that qualitative analysis is limited because its findings are neither valid nor reliable! PE: Well in one sense I suppose you are correct. Those who employ qualitative research methods don’t typically subscribe to the notions of validity and reliability. But this is not to suggest that their analysis is vague or arbitrary. Rather qualitative researchers frequently employ the terms ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘authenticity’ (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Without going into the details of each, I can inform you that those using qualitative methods, like you, in essence, ultimately want to present an accurate representation of the phenomenon under investigation. The point I’m trying to make is that qualitative inquiry, including that of athletic performance, isn’t unsystematic by nature. TC: I’m not sure if I completely follow all of this technical jargon, but I think I’ve got the general gist of what’s being said. NA you can’t honestly think that the accuracy of my analysis isn’t important? I can tell you that it does matter! Otherwise what’s the purpose of what I do (He asks in a fairly aggressive tone)? NA: Well that’s not what I meant. In-fact I’m not totally sure what my point is now. All I know is that, I was taught to consider subjective analysis as being less accurate than an objective analysis of athletic performance. TC: (Quite frustrated, TC continues with what he was saying) I have to provide evidence in support of the claims that I make, while always striving to ensure that the technical information I feedback to my players is as accurate as possible. I take on-board your comment from earlier mind. There are times when the emotional nature of the game can shape how a coach views performance. Match days can be tense affairs. But that’s why I re-watch the game on DVD the next day, once most of the emotions have faded away (Groom et al., 2011). I also show the players videoclips that evidence my analysis. As a coach you are always being judged. My players Re-conceptualising performance analysis are very aware. The delivery of an inaccurate analysis or the provision of technically incorrect information could lead to my loosing the players’ respect (Greenleaf et al., 2001). That’s the last thing I want or need (Potrac et al., 2002)! PE: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you both want to produce an accurate analysis of athletic performance, albeit with different approaches? NA: Yer I suppose it does (He says looking slightly confused). Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 PE: So what are your thoughts about qualitative analysis in light of what has been said NA? NA: Well, I suppose I wasn’t really aware that subjective analysis could be so detailed. Having said that, I’m still not convinced that qualitative analysis can provide you with any information that can’t be obtained through quantitative analysis. PE: I remember thinking like that when I first entered the field. It’s often quite easy to get caught-up in a world of statistics. However, while quantitative analysis can be very useful for looking at specific performance components in considerable depth, sporting performance is often far more complex than that. Analysis of athletic performance, at any given moment, can include consideration of numerous interrelated factors. Consider team sports for example. Performance within these requires consideration of the athlete’s psychological status, physiological make-up and preparation, technical execution, tactical understanding, decision-making abilities and contextual factors relating the game itself, amongst other things. While quantitative methods can help us to measure some of these factors, an integrated interpretation of this data, at the present at least, still requires subjective input from the analyst. But we have to be realistic. It’s not practically possible to record absolutely everything, even when working in an elite level environment. Hughes (2008b) recognises this when acknowledging that the data collection and processing phases of even a relatively simple notational analysis system requires a considerable investment of time. While it would be nice to quantitatively analyse every detail, sometimes subjective analysis is much quicker and can unearth a more integrated understanding; although, technological advances are making the collection and analysis of statistical information much easier and more rapid (Carling et al., 2009). TC: Exactly, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell him all-along. It’s not qualitative analysis that is limited, but quantitative analysis (TC feels like he is getting somewhere)! PE: I understand what you are saying TC, but I’m not sure that’s quite right either. While I agree that subjective analysis can provide a rich inter-disciplinary analysis of performance, we also have to recognise that qualitative analysis can sometimes lack the finer detail that quantitative analysts often crave and is at times necessary. For example, having observed the first half of a match you might have formed the impression that the opposition has dominated your team. Here, a number of comparative statics (e.g. possession, entries into the attacking third, free-kicks won, corners won and shots at goal) could conceivably provide you with some additional information of a more specific nature. And let’s consider another example. I bet you don’t question practitioners for using a stopwatch to time their player’s pre-season fitness scores. Well that’s a form of quantitative assessment of performance! We also have to recognise that the depth of any subjective analysis is, to some degree, limited by the level of understanding that the analyst possesses. Having said that, we also have to appreciate that quantitative, like qualitative, methods are also fallible. They too have limitations. There are limits to how much information can 697 698 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 be captured and processed when using these systems (Hughes, 2008b); many of the commercially available time-motion analysis systems fail to consider differences in individual capacities (Abt & Lovell, 2009); the costs associated with the purchasing of many match analysis and quantitative bio-mechanical systems means that their use is often restricted to elite-level coaching environments only (Carling et al., 2005, 2009). We also have to recognise that quantitative analysis of performance is also reductive, in that it separates events from context. TC: (Latching onto a point that supports his argument states) So you are saying that quantitative data can provide further evidence in support of my qualitative analysis? PE: Yes, but it can also provide an additional level of detail to your subjective analysis and the feedback that you ultimately give to your athletes. In short, it provides further evidence in support of the claim that you are making. TC: OK, well in that case I can see its value (TC is starting to find himself in agreement with what PE is saying). PE: But it’s more than just that. It could also cause you to question your original analysis, as there might not be evidence in support of your original claim. The statistical data might, however, highlight additional factors that you didn’t pick-upon when watching the game. Hughes (2008a) also rightfully points out that the databasing of statistics, across multiple matches, allows you to plot trends that you might not otherwise have been aware of. In light of all this, I find myself in agreement with Carling et al. (2005) who have argued that coaches should use both quantitative and qualitative methods. I would take this a step further though. I would question whether the clear distinction made between these two approaches is, at a practical level, seen to be helpful. In doing so, I concur with Knudson and Morrison’s (2002) observation that even quantification of a highly controlled nature cannot be purely objective. From a pragmatic perspective, though, I also contend that it’s highly unlikely that qualitative analysis can be totally subjective (Morgan, 2007). As such, I’m of the opinion that the analysis of athletic performance is perhaps best conceptualised as a quantitative-qualitative continuum, with methods being more or less objective or subjective. Additionally, it should be acknowledged that the findings of methods running along this continuum may in some instances compliment one-another by elucidating additional information that collectively contribute towards a greater depth of understanding. For example, imagine a situation where a coach has read a statistically-based scouting report prior to watching a video recording of a match. Do you think that the statistical report will in any way influence how the coach interprets the game that he is about to watch? NA: Without a doubt. If the coach has seen the team or a player perform particularly well (or poorly) statistically, then they might keep an eye out for these aspects of the performance. PE: What do you think TC? TC: I would agree with that. PE: And what about if we reverse the example? Imagine that the coach watches the video first and then reads the statistical report. Do you think that the coach’s subjective watching of the game will influence his reading of the report? Re-conceptualising performance analysis 699 TC: I think so yes. He would be able to give some context to the stats, some actual examples, and he would most probably be able to explain some of the key findings from the stats in greater detail. PE: NA? Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 NA: Yer I think that TC is probably right in what he says. PE: In which case, you seem to be agreeing that deductive analysis of objective data can influence inductive analysis of subjective interpretations, and vice versa, to confirm or reject provisional understandings; what pragmatists call abductive analysis (Atkinson & Delamont, 2005). Perhaps, then, it’s not about whether we should use quantitative or qualitative methods to analyse athletic performance, but choosing methods that best match the current purposes, and where possible appropriately using them in combination to provide further evidence in support of the claims that we make; what the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey (1938) terms warranted assertions. At the very least, I suspect that the issue of combining methods of analysing athletic performance requires further consideration both practically and philosophically. References Abraham, A., Collins, D. & Martindale, R. (2006) The coaching schematic: validation through expert coach consensus, Journal of Sport Sciences, 24(6), 549
564. Abt, G. & Lovell, R. (2009) The use of individualized speed and intensity thresholds for determining the distance run at high-intensity in professional soccer, Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(9), 893
898. Atkinson, P. & Delamont, S. (2005) Analytical perspective, in: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds) The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn) (London, Sage), 821
840. Bartlett, R. (2008) Introduction, in: C. J. Payton & R. M. Bartlett (Eds) Biomechanical evaluation of movement in sport and exercise (London, Routledge). Carling, C., Bloomfield, J., Nelson, L. & Reilly, T. (2008) The role of motion analysis in elite soccer, Sports Medicine, 38(10), 839
862. Carling, C., Reilly, T. & Williams, M. A. (2009) Performance assessment for field sports (London, Routledge). Carling, C., Williams, M. A. & Reilly, T. (2005) Handbook of soccer match analysis (London, Routledge). Creswell, J. W. & Garrett, A. L. (2008) The ‘‘movement’’ of mixed methods research and the role of educators, South African Journal of Education, 28, 321
333. Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd edn) (London, Sage). Dewey, J. (1938) Logic: the theory of inquiry (New York, Henry Holt). Drust, B. (2010) Performance analysis research: meeting the challenge, Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(9), 921
922. Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M. & Anzul, M. (1997) On writing qualitative research: living by words (London, Falmer). Franks, I. M. & Miller, G. (1986) Eyewitness testimony in sport, Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 39
45. Franks, I. M. & Miller, G. (1991) Training coaches to observe and remember, Journal of Sports Sciences, 9, 285
297. Gratton, G. & Jones, I. (2004) Research methods for sports studies (London, Routledge). Greenleaf, C., Gould, D. & Dieffenbach, K. (2001) Factors influencing Olympic performance: interviews with Atlanta and Nagano US Olympians, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 154
184. Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 700 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom Groom, R., Cushion, C. J. & Nelson, L. J. (2011) The delivery of video-based performance analysis by England youth soccer coaches: towards a grounded theory, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 16
32. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, in: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn) (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 191
215. Hodges, N. J. & Franks, I. M. (2002) Modelling coaching practice: the role of instruction and coaching, Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 793
811. Hughes, M. (2008a) Sport analysis, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 85
97. Hughes, M. (2008b) How do we design simple systems? How to develop a notation system, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 98
110. Hughes, M. & Bartlett, B. (2008) What is performance analysis? in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 8
20. Hughes, M. D. (2005) Notational analysis, in: R. Bartlett, C. Gratton, & C. G. Rolf (Eds) Encyclopaedia of international sports studies (London, Routledge), 1
7. Irwin, G., Hanton, S. & Kerwin, D. (2004) Reflective practice and the origins of elite coaching knowledge, Reflective Practice, 5, 425
442. Jones, R. (2007) Coaching redefined: an everyday pedagogical endeavour, Sport, Education and Society, 12(2), 159
173. Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M. & Potrac, P. (2003) Constructing expert knowledge: a case study of a top-level professional soccer coach, Sport Education and Society, 8(2), 213
229. Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M. & Potrac, P. (2004) Sport coaching cultures: from practice to theory (London, Routledge). Kerwin, D. & Irwin, G. (2008) Biomechanics for coaches, in: R. L. Jones, M. Hughes & K. Kingston (Eds) An introduction to sports coaching (London, Routledge), 87
100. Knudson, D. V. & Morrison, C. S. (2002) Qualitative analysis of human movement (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics). Lees, A. (2008) Qualitative biomechanical analysis of technique, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 162
179. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (Newbury Park, CA, Sage). Lyle, J. (2002) Sports coaching concepts: a framework for coaches behaviour (London, Routledge). Maslovat, D. & Franks, I. (2008) The need for feedback, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 1
7. McNamee, M. (2005) Positivism, popper and paradigms: an introductory essay in the philosophy of science, in: M. McNamee (Ed.) Philosophy and the science of exercise, health and sport: critical perspectives on research methods (London, Routledge), 1
20. Morgan, D. L. (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48
76. O’Donoghue, P. (2008) Time-motion analysis, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 180
205. O’Donoghue, P. (2010) Research methods for sport performance analysis (London, Routledge). Plano Clark, V. L. & Creswell, J. W. (2008) The mixed method reader (London, Sage). Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R., Armour, K. & Hoff, J. (2000) Towards an holistic understanding of the coaching process, Quest, 52, 186
199. Potrac, P., Jones, R. L. & Armour, K. (2002) It’s all about getting respect: the coaching behaviours of an expert English soccer coach, Sport, Education and Society, 7(2), 183
202. Schempp, P. G., Webster, C., McCullick, B. A., Busch, C. & Manson, S. (2007) How the best get better: an analysis of the self-monitoring strategies used by expert golf instructors, Sport, Education and Society, 12(2), 175
192. Re-conceptualising performance analysis 701 Downloaded by [Manchester Metropolitan University] at 13:26 04 November 2012 Smith, M. & Cushion, C. J. (2006) An investigation of the in-game behaviours of professional, toplevel youth soccer coaches, Journal of Sports Science, 24(4), 355
366. Stratton, G., Reilly, T., Williams, A. M. & Richardson, D. (2004) Youth soccer: from science to performance (London, Routledge). Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2010) Review of contemporary issues in mixed methods Research, in: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research (2nd edn) (London, Sage), 1
41.