Sara Campbell, J. Mills, Obidiah Atkinson, B. Gearity, C. Kuklick, B. McCullick
{"title":"参与范式对话:1970 - 2020年教练奖学金的文献计量分析","authors":"Sara Campbell, J. Mills, Obidiah Atkinson, B. Gearity, C. Kuklick, B. McCullick","doi":"10.1123/iscj.2021-0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Coaching scholarship (CS) sits at the intersection of multiple paradigms and disciplines. Despite the eclectic nature of the field, most scholars operate only within their preferred paradigm, which limits how coaching is conceptualized and practiced. To address this limitation, we used the dialectic stance to analyze bibliometric records of CS produced between 1970 and 2020 from both an interpretivist and poststructuralist perspective. Using Web of Science, we identified 2,522 coaching articles and organized the bibliometric data into a time-ordered matrix representing five decades of CS: (a) number of publications per year, (b) country of origin, (c) institution, (d) journal, (e) author, and (f) most cited articles. Two research groups analyzed the data concurrently and independently using their respective paradigm. Next, the two groups came together to engage in dialogue and discover areas of convergence and divergence. Through the paradigmatic dialogue, the interpretivist research group realized they were operating in a postpositivist paradigm. Nevertheless, both groups determined CS was heavily influenced by Western societies, sport psychology, and the topic of motivation. The postpositivists highlighted evolutionary trends in CS, while the poststructuralists elucidated relations of power, understudied problems, and the consequences of the dominant knowledge produced.","PeriodicalId":45934,"journal":{"name":"International Sport Coaching Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engaging in Paradigmatic Dialogue: A Bibliometric Analysis of Coaching Scholarship From 1970 to 2020\",\"authors\":\"Sara Campbell, J. Mills, Obidiah Atkinson, B. Gearity, C. Kuklick, B. McCullick\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/iscj.2021-0045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Coaching scholarship (CS) sits at the intersection of multiple paradigms and disciplines. Despite the eclectic nature of the field, most scholars operate only within their preferred paradigm, which limits how coaching is conceptualized and practiced. To address this limitation, we used the dialectic stance to analyze bibliometric records of CS produced between 1970 and 2020 from both an interpretivist and poststructuralist perspective. Using Web of Science, we identified 2,522 coaching articles and organized the bibliometric data into a time-ordered matrix representing five decades of CS: (a) number of publications per year, (b) country of origin, (c) institution, (d) journal, (e) author, and (f) most cited articles. Two research groups analyzed the data concurrently and independently using their respective paradigm. Next, the two groups came together to engage in dialogue and discover areas of convergence and divergence. Through the paradigmatic dialogue, the interpretivist research group realized they were operating in a postpositivist paradigm. Nevertheless, both groups determined CS was heavily influenced by Western societies, sport psychology, and the topic of motivation. The postpositivists highlighted evolutionary trends in CS, while the poststructuralists elucidated relations of power, understudied problems, and the consequences of the dominant knowledge produced.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Sport Coaching Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Sport Coaching Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2021-0045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Sport Coaching Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2021-0045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
教练奖学金(CS)处于多种范式和学科的交叉点。尽管该领域具有不拘一格的性质,但大多数学者只在他们喜欢的范式内操作,这限制了教练的概念化和实践。为了解决这一局限性,我们采用辩证法的立场,从解释主义和后结构主义的角度分析了1970年至2020年间CS的文献计量记录。使用Web of Science,我们确定了2,522篇指导文章,并将文献计量数据组织成一个时间顺序矩阵,代表50年来的CS:(a)每年的出版物数量,(b)原产国,(c)机构,(d)期刊,(e)作者,(f)被引用最多的文章。两个研究小组同时使用各自的范式独立分析数据。接下来,两个小组走到一起进行对话,并发现趋同和分歧的领域。通过范式对话,解释主义研究小组意识到他们是在后实证主义范式中运作的。尽管如此,两组人都认为CS受到西方社会、运动心理学和动机主题的严重影响。后实证主义者强调了计算机科学的进化趋势,而后结构主义者则阐明了权力关系、未被充分研究的问题以及主导知识所产生的后果。
Engaging in Paradigmatic Dialogue: A Bibliometric Analysis of Coaching Scholarship From 1970 to 2020
Coaching scholarship (CS) sits at the intersection of multiple paradigms and disciplines. Despite the eclectic nature of the field, most scholars operate only within their preferred paradigm, which limits how coaching is conceptualized and practiced. To address this limitation, we used the dialectic stance to analyze bibliometric records of CS produced between 1970 and 2020 from both an interpretivist and poststructuralist perspective. Using Web of Science, we identified 2,522 coaching articles and organized the bibliometric data into a time-ordered matrix representing five decades of CS: (a) number of publications per year, (b) country of origin, (c) institution, (d) journal, (e) author, and (f) most cited articles. Two research groups analyzed the data concurrently and independently using their respective paradigm. Next, the two groups came together to engage in dialogue and discover areas of convergence and divergence. Through the paradigmatic dialogue, the interpretivist research group realized they were operating in a postpositivist paradigm. Nevertheless, both groups determined CS was heavily influenced by Western societies, sport psychology, and the topic of motivation. The postpositivists highlighted evolutionary trends in CS, while the poststructuralists elucidated relations of power, understudied problems, and the consequences of the dominant knowledge produced.