Charming, influencing and seducing: a portrayal of everyday coaching

Since a critical turn was embarked on two decades ago, research into sports coaching has increased in quality and quantity [see Jones, R. L. (2019). Studies coaching. Cambridge Scholars Publishing]. Despite such welcome advances, the essence or heart of activity remains contested terrain [Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011). Taking next step: Ways forward for science. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 63(4), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483687; L., Edwards, C., Tuim Viotto Filho, I. A. (2016). Activity theory, complexity coaching: An epistemology discipline. Sport, Education Society, 21(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.895713]. Subsequently, aim this work to inductively analyse practice top-level coach better understand core what he actually did whilst working. This particularly terms how managed working contexts others within it towards desired ends. In seeking ‘bottom up’ construction practice, study adopted tenets from both grounded theory phenomenological inquiry. More specifically, fieldwork conducted over 6-month period at women’s basketball club, with data collection methods being ethnographic nature, inclusive participant observation informal interviews. The main findings indicated that question, together his team, were engaged series social, power-related, seductive strategies designed charm athletes ‘buy into’ given agenda.