Philosophies and expectations of wheelchair and stand-up collegiate basketball coaches.

Robbins, Jamie E. ; Houston, Eva ; Dummer, Gail M. 等

Wheelchair Basketball

Wheelchair basketball is the most popular team sport for athletes with disabilities. The sport was developed by injured World War II veterans around 1946 and it quickly spread across Europe. Competitive events began informally in 1973 and more official competitions emerged in the following years. Since then, wheelchair basketball has become a collegiate sport, recruiting top athletes from the junior divisions. Wheelchair basketball rules are in accordance with NCAA regulations, with only a few modifications regarding the wheelchair. Any individual with a severe and permanent leg injury or paralysis of the lower body is eligible to play.

The sport is continually growing from the junior to Paralympic level, and according to the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation (IWBF), one of the biggest obstacles may be in finding and training coaches. This statement speaks to the importance of quality coaches to enhancing and building a sport program. In order to create the most effective training program or identify possible coaches, it is critical to first understand the current mentality of individuals in coaching positions. There is very little empirical data concerning coaches' expectations and philosophies in general, therefore, one purpose of the following study was to identify the philosophies and expectations of coaches for wheelchair and stand-up basketball. In as much as the two sports are similar, it seems logical that coaches would share thoughts and ideas about their sports. These findings are relevant for research and understanding in addition to outcome and athletic participation because coaches' expectations have been found to significantly affect athletic performances (Chase, Lirgg, & Feltz, 1997).

Coaches Expectations and Philosophies

The self-fulfilling prophecy theory explains how the expectations of one individual can influence the thoughts and behaviors of another (Merton, 1968). The expectations-performance relationship explains this process in a sport context (Horn, Lox, & Labrador, 2001). First, coach forms an expectation of an athlete based on personal cues. The coaches' expectations influence their own coaching behaviors toward the athlete, which get interpreted by the athlete and influence performance. This process re-confirms coach's initial expectation. The significance of the coach is unmistakable as the process begins with a mere thought transmitted to an athlete by expression, word, or action. Coaches' verbal persuasion can influence; not only behaviors, but also athletes' self-esteem (Bandura, 1990). In general, athletes appreciate their coaches' presence and recognize the influence these individuals have on their athletic success (White & Duda, 1993). Athletes want coaches to push them and demonstrate confidence in them as was explained by athletes at the 1994 Winter Paralympics who stated that without high expectancy coaches, athletes must be completely self-motivated (Pensgaard, Roberts, & Ursin, 1999). Although these are top level, self-motivated competitors, they admit that external assistance is both helpful and appreciated. In addition, coaches with low expectations of athletes, who accept mediocre performances, may perpetuate the myth that individuals with disabilities are not real athletes; whereas, coaches who expect greatness and extraordinary achievements from their athletes may negate the negative stigma associated with disability.

Empirical studies examining coaches' philosophies and expectations are minimal and even less is known about coaches for athletes with disabilities. According to Coakley (2007), most coaches share a set of beliefs referred to as the sport ethic. Sports, at all levels, are about pushing limits and doing more than what was done before. According to the sport ethic, athletes are expected to: (a) make sacrifices for the game; (b) strive for distinction; (c) accept risks and play through pain; and (d) accept no limits while pursuing the possibilities of sport. This sport ethic is evidenced in media commentaries, coaches' discussion of their athletes, and athletes' stories about their own successes. It can be speculated that these views of what it takes to be a real athlete are ingrained in the mind of any coach. Therefore, it can be assumed that coaches would expect athletes to win, sacrifice and play through pain.

However, two more recent studies identified coach philosophies which appear to counter previously held beliefs about coaches. Bloom (1996) studied 22 leading Canadian coaches in basketball, field hockey, ice hockey and volleyball. These coaches provided insights into themselves, their philosophies, and how to work with athletes. General themes included: (a) adaptability; (b) having good people around; and (c) identifying a personal style. Bloom's coaches also mentioned the importance of helping athletes develop on and off the fields, respecting and communicating with athletes. Additionally their comments demonstrated a personal concern for athletes as individuals.

A second study by Vallee and Bloom (2005) assessed the influence of coaches on team development, finding that coach attributes were significant. These attributes were found to vary between individuals from being autocratic to democratic and caring to tough. They identified no specific coaching characteristic ensured success; rather, success was partly due to the relationship between coach and athletes, and coaches' willingness to develop athletes as athletes and as people. According to Vallee and Bloom success is, "... a genuine investment in the personal development of players regarding their behaviors, leadership characteristics and ability to set high standards. Seemingly, winning then emerged from such a philosophy" (p. 191). The existent literature on coaches' philosophies and expectations are limited and divergent. The current study intended to help fill this gap in the literature and uncover whether disability status of athletes factored into coaches' thoughts and beliefs.

Societal Perceptions of Individuals with Disabilities

There is evidence that individuals with disabilities are held to lower standards in society, which may influence their treatment as athletes as well. Individuals with disabilities have been deemed less capable of daily activities and devalued in society for generations, being called inferior, incapable, burdensome, and unaesthetic (Vash & Crewe, 2004). In fact, synonyms for the term disability include inability and incompetence.

Although athletes with disabilities have explained their desire to be pushed and to push themselves, they are still habitually viewed as people either to be pitied because of disability or admired based on minimal efforts and achievements (Harris, 1991). This notion was confirmed by Hardin and Hardin (2003) who claimed that people with disabilities are often admired for their perseverance and courage. On the contrary, White, Gordon, and Jackson (2006) found people held more negativity toward people with disabilities in their study of implicit versus explicit attitudes towards athletes with disabilities. Implicit attitudes refer to those beliefs and feelings held by an individual but not overtly stated; whereas, explicit attitudes are the beliefs and feelings clearly expressed to the outside world. White et al. (2006) found that implicit attitudes toward athletes with disabilities were consistently negative compared to their explicit attitudes towards those same athletes. These results confirm society's aversion to disability. This implicit negative attitude towards athletes with disabilities also was mentioned by Suggs (2003) who quoted a member of the education-appropriations committee as saying that athletic directors are unable to see past the physical imperfections of athletes with disabilities and thus are less willing to create wheelchair basketball varsity programs in their institutions. Obviously there are contrasting views from admiration and acceptance to doubt and pity. This is further evidenced by media coverage of the Paralympic Games and similar sports events. These events are typically buried on inaccessible television channels, broadcasted in the wee hours of the morning, or printed in the humanities section of the newspaper as opposed to the sports pages.

Societal attitudes toward people with disabilities have changed since the days of locking them away or hiding them from public eye. With the help of laws and proponents for people with disabilities, there are more positive images in the media. In addition, wheelchair sports have grown since the post World War II rehabilitation centered games. The Disabled Sports USA (DSUSA) and Wheelchair Sport USA (WSUSA) and other organizations are now focused more on competitive athletes rather than recreation. However, the growth is slow and the medical model, which focuses on what one cannot do, still persists today.

Society at large still holds lower expectations for people with disabilities and to push them would carry a connotation of cruelty (Parker & Szymanski, 2005). This begs the question, when we speak so much about differences and highlight adaptations and inabilities, do we limit levels of accomplishment or avoid pushing others to do more? The current study addressed this question with coaches by identifying their general philosophies and expectations of their athletes. With so many differing theories and views relating to athletes in general and people with disabilities, it is necessary to identify which resonate more in the minds of coaches. The purpose of the study was to address the following questions: (a) What are the philosophies of wheelchair and stand-up basketball coaches?; (b) Do the philosophies of wheelchair basketball coaches differ from stand-up basketball coaches?; (c) What are stand-up and wheelchair basketball coaches' expectations for their athletes?; and (d) Do stand-up and wheelchair basketball coaches differ in their expectations for their athletes?

Method

Participants

Fourteen head coaches participated in the current study; six coaches for wheelchair basketball and eight coaches for stand-up basketball. Coaches for wheelchair basketball were recruited from a Collegiate Wheelchair Basketball Championship, and a wheelchair basketball camp. These sites were selected based on suggestions by professionals in the field. All wheelchair basketball coaches interviewed were males. Four of the six wheelchair coaches had a physical disability themselves. The coaches ranged in age from 29 to 66, with a mean age of 42.7. Detailed demographic information for each coach is not provided to protect the anonymity of the participants.

All coaches for stand-up basketball were randomly selected from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball telephone guide. Forty Division I male and female head college coaches were randomly selected and telephoned. Coaches for male and female programs were selected because both male and female athletes participate on wheelchair basketball teams. Messages were left for these coaches and out of the forty who were contacted, eight college coaches agreed to participate (4 male coaches and 4 female coaches). The remaining thirty-two coaches did not respond to telephone messages. Follow-ups were not necessary as the number of respondents exceeded the number of wheelchair basketball coaches in the study. The stand-up coaches ranged in age from 32 to 54, with a mean age of 43.1. Again, specific detailed information for each coach is not provided to protect anonymity.

Procedures

Coaches were interviewed individually, in person or via-telephone depending on preference and convenience. This method follows the design of previous research, which utilized multiple methods to collect data (Davis & Myers; 2008; Midanik & Greenfield, 2003). The interviews lasted approximately one to two hours and an interview-guide was used to maintain structure. However, coaches were encouraged to expound on any topic they felt was relevant.

Instrumentation

A semi-structured interview-guide was used to identify coaches' expectations and philosophies. The goal of the interview was to obtain rich information from coaches concerning their philosophies and expectations, while avoiding bias attributed to either the researcher or the participant. The term philosophy was used to describe people's attitudes, which consist of thoughts, feelings and beliefs (B. Finifter, personal communication, May 2, 2004). The definition for coaches' philosophies, as it was used in the current study, includes coaches' self-proclaimed thoughts, ideas, attitudes, and beliefs about their athletes and what it takes to be successful in their sport. Questions included: (a) what are your main goals for your athletes; (b) can you explain your coaching philosophy; and (c) how do you know how hard you can push an athlete? Predetermined follow-up probes were included in the interview guide to help in obtaining comprehensive reports of the coaches' philosophies and beliefs. For example, the interviewer would ask the question and then follow up with, "Have you ever had a situation like that? And, if yes, can you explain?" Open-ended questions were used to allow participants to elaborate on thoughts and responses. The questions were created following discussions with coaches, specialists in the field, and a thorough review of research on the subject. Consistent with other studies where interview guides were created specifically for the research (Kerr, Berman, & DeSouza, 2006; Warriner & Lavallee, 2008), the interview guide used in this study was piloted with a group of wheelchair basketball coaches to ensure questions were clear and yielded responses appropriate to the study purpose. Content validity was assumed as coaches' responses to the questions reflected the definition of "philosophy" used in the study.

Data Analyses

Data analysis procedures were adapted from previous studies utilizing similar methodologies (Davis & Myer, 2008; Gould, Finch, & Jackson, 1993; Scanlan, Stein, & Ravizza, 1989). Interviews were transcribed and proofread. Transcribed interviews were read for content and themes were identified. Content analyses were repeated several times by each investigator alone and then as a group. This process of grouping like ideas, referred to as ordering, was conducted at least four times to ensure a thorough understanding of coaches' comments and agreement among investigators (Bogden & Biklen, 1992). The most specific themes, termed first order themes, are the coaches' direct comments, which were reworded into a single meaning unit and termed second order themes. These themes were later combined into like groups and labeled general dimensions. The researchers used a review system to check and balance themes throughout the ordering process. Researchers discussed the data over numerous meetings to ensure complete agreement and to facilitate inter-rater reliability (Davis & Meyer, 2008). Final general dimensions were selected when 100% inter-rater reliability was achieved.

In the results section that follows, general dimension labels are presented as headings and first-order themes (coaches' comments) are presented as supporting evidence. Code letters are used to identify coaches as wheelchair (WC) or stand-up (SU) and male (m) or female (f). The number succeeding the letters represents the coach's individual code. The numbers extend beyond fourteen because the original data set encompassed a larger group of coaches from various levels of the sport. The current study provides analysis only on comments of college-level coaches.

The data analyses for the current study were designed to preserve all data and provide the words and ideas of the coaches as directly as possible. Researchers made an effort to provide unbiased analysis through continual dialogue and discussions related to possible personal bias (Davis & Meyer, 2008; Patton, 2002). It is therefore important to identify their backgrounds in the fields of sport psychology (first author), disability sport (second author) and rehabilitation counseling (third author). The researchers attempted to analyze and explain the data based on the information provided by the coaches as opposed to presupposed ideas that may be associated with these fields of study.

Results

Eleven general dimensions (i.e., themes) were identified during content analysis of the interviews. The current paper, however, will focus only on five of those themes: (a) expectations; (b) perspectives on coaching; (c) philosophies of success; (d) individual differences; and (e) thoughts about athletes. The most notable finding across the five themes concerned the differences between and among all coaches, as opposed to the differences between the two groups. There were similarities and differences among all coaches for wheelchair basketball, just as there were similarities and differences among all coaches for stand-up basketball.

Expectations

According to the self-fulfilling prophecy theory, external expectations can influence an individual's behavior (Merton, 1948). Therefore, if a coach does not have high expectations for his or her athletes, those athletes are likely not to expect much from themselves. Similarly, if coaches hold high expectations for their athletes, these individuals are more likely to perform at higher levels. The coaches in the current study explained their expectations in terms of goals set with and for athletes, messages communicated directly to athletes, and behaviors specifically expected from athletes on and off the court.

Coaches spoke about expecting athletes to work hard, do well academically, and prepare physically. Coaches wanted athletes to grow from their inception into the basketball program until the day they left. There were no obvious differences with regard to expectations of wheelchair and stand-up coaches. Concerning hard work, one stand-up coach explained, "It's not equal gift, but equal sacrifice. Everybody on that court is at different levels of their skill ability, but the heart is the one thing that is consistent. Everybody can give me that 100% ..." (SU 17m). Similarly, a wheelchair basketball coach stated, "I expect a lot, and when I'm recruiting athletes to come here, I let them know that I'm going to be demanding of them, that it's going to be a lot of effort they're going to have to put forth ... "(WC10m). These coaches expect that for, "... 2 hours of practice and 40 minutes of game, we work"(WC4m).

Both wheelchair and stand-up coaches spoke about expecting hard work in the classroom, and at least one coach from each group identified graduation as a priority. A stand-up coach explained, "obviously to get their degree, that's the number one thing, no matter if they never play a second for me"(SU4f). A wheelchair coach concurred, stating, "... we will not compromise academically. We will not compromise socially. We're not going to compromise athletically"(WC 14m). Coaches from both groups also expected athletes to prepare physically by strength training, completing shooting drills, working on ball handling, and scrimmaging during the off-season. Additionally, both groups explained the need to test athletes physically to ensure they possessed adequate speed and ability to compete at the college level.

Comments from both wheelchair and stand-up coaches also explained an expectation for athletes to focus on team-oriented goals and accept personal responsibility for their actions. Individual stand-up coaches did provide a greater variety of expectations than wheelchair basketball coaches, citing their desire for athletes to give back to the community, represent their school, and have fun. Although fun was not mentioned by the wheelchair basketball coaches in this theme, it was mentioned in a different theme.

Further expectations included accountability and setting priorities. One stand-up coach explained that he asks athletes what they want to be and from that he determines the level of effort and work he expects. He stated:

   You tell me what you want and trust me that I know how to get you
   there. But once you tell me what you want, then that's the road
   we're heading. So don't tell me you want to be a pro and you don't
   want to work and you don't want to spend time watching film. You
   don't want to work extra on your shooting. You don't want to be in
   the greatest shape. Don't tell me that. Don't tell me you want to
   be a 3-something student and then think you're not going to be in
   study hall, not going to do this or that ... (SU8m).

Similarly, a wheelchair coach explained his expectation of hard work and commitment. He would rather an athlete try and fail than play well but not commit.

   If I had an athlete who missed 60% or 40% of the time, but then
   showed up at Nationals and won, I wouldn't be comfortable with that
   ... We would have conflict and I wouldn't be able to tell that
   person good job at the end of that because they hadn't put the time
   in. If I had an athlete who put in 100% all the time during season,
   but came in last place, I'm going to tell that person how proud I
   am of him (WC8m).

Interestingly, some coaches placed commitment to basketball lower than commitment to other areas of life. "I am not your typical DI coach. I am not a dog-eat-dog, 24 hour a day. I want them to understand god, family, education, and team"(SU 17m). Results demonstrate that no single expectation can explain all coaches; wheelchair or stand-up. In addition, results show no obvious differences between the expectations of wheelchair or stand-up coaches. Both groups expected hard work on the court and in the classroom. Both wheelchair and stand-up coaches desired focused and personally accountable athletes. The only distinction may be a greater variety of expectations mentioned by stand-up coaches.

Perspectives on Coaching

Coaching styles differ dramatically between and among all groups. The coaches in the current study provided insights into their ideas concerning essential techniques for coaching Division I basketball. Responses demonstrate both differences and similarities between and among all coaches interviewed. Specifically, coaches for wheelchair basketball spoke about building relationships with athletes, working on the person, building athlete confidence, and doing what is best for the athletes. One coach stated:

   ... the philosophy behind the coaching is all the same. You treat
   people with dignity. You teach them what they need to know and you
   do it in a positive manner and when they don't follow the
   instruction, the way you come across with your negative
   reinforcement still has to be constructive. It can't be destructive
   (WC 13m).

Opposite perspectives were heard by coaches citing the importance of being tough. "I don't want any B.S. because I'm not going to give any"(WC21m). A separate coach said:

   I know some people may have a tendency to be a little softer with
   kids with disabilities because they have a disability. I could care
   less. I played the sport. I know what it takes to be successful at
   the very highest level and I've got a disability myself. It's not
   that big of a deal. And I'm not going to back off on some kid
   because they push around in a wheelchair (WC 10m).

These same coaches also mentioned the consequence of finding a middle ground between tough and caring, claiming, "I'll spend 10, 15 minutes with a kid, some real pounding. But all of a sudden it clicks or they do it well. My dad always told me, 'if you're going to chew, be the first there to praise,'"(WC21m).

The importance of being both tough and compassionate was a relevant theme for many coaches. One coach explained how he expects to be seen and listened to on the court without question, but he knows the value of creating an outlet for athletes off the court.

   You have to be able to distinguish between what is right on the
   court and what is right off the court. I tell all my players;
   whatever I say goes on the court. There are no arguments. You can
   ask questions as long as they are not derogatory towards your
   teammates or the coaching staff. In my office, we will close the
   door and you can call me any name in the book ... if I'm not going
   to let you express everything that's on your mind on the court,
   I've got to give you an avenue for release, and my office is a
   sanctuary (WC13m).

The coaches recognized the need to be a presence as a coach, but also stated that athletes respond best when they know coaches respect them as people and are honest from the start. As well, one coach elucidated the impact of allowing for fun at the end of the day.

   I always say, I don't care what happens before practice. I don't
   care what happens after practice, but two hours of practice, you're
   mine. Whatever happens between the lines, it's nothing personal,
   and it's nothing friendly. I don't care if you bleed, if you sweat,
   if you cry. I don't care.., but we're working hard and we're going
   to make some progress.
   ... Nothing we ever do is easy in practice. After practice we have
   tons of fun ... Our absolute number one goal is to have fun, enjoy
   life (WC4m).

The primary messages from the wheelchair coaches reflected their intent to push their athletes, but also to do it with respect. They also explained the importance of wearing different hats compatible with the athlete's needs. "You're coaching you do have to walk that line between being a coach and also being more like a counselor ... "(WC8m).

In general many of these same themes were mentioned by stand-up coaches, who agreed on the importance of challenging and pushing athletes. "You don't want to set things so kids fail, but I think sometimes if we assume that they're not up to the challenge then they just perform based on your expectations ... "(SU4f). Similar to wheelchair basketball coaches, standup coaches identified the importance of pushing beyond limits while concurrently recognizing that "too far" exists. One coach said:

   ... it's our job to push them far beyond and make them better than
   they ever thought they would be...The way I see it is, if I don't
   make them tougher, then their opponents are going to be able to
   beat them, to wear them down.., their opponents have got to be
   easier to get to than I am because I want them to be tough by the
   time we play, otherwise we're going to get beat most of the time
   ... I try to push within the limits and then back off a little bit
   ... (SU17m).

Still, similar to the wheelchair basketball coaches, stand-up basketball coaches were focused on pushing and challenging their athletes. One coach said:

   ... The word can't doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. I think
   every athlete has his or her limitations as far as physical
   limitations, but you never really know what they are until you
   challenge somebody to try and stretch to that limit ... (SU1m).

A separate coach said, "... you just push them to a level they are not totally sure they can totally make"(SU19f). However, the coaches did also recognize that although being tough may be necessary, it will not benefit coaches who do not have a positive relationship with their athletes. This was best explained by the following coach:

   ... I think I'm hard on my players, but I think I have a license to
   be because I spend a lot of time with them ... There's such a fine
   line between what you can push and pull. I think too many people
   want to push buttons, especially tough buttons, before they develop
   the relationship or trust (SU8m).

Coaches for both wheelchair and stand-up basketball possess personal styles and behave in manners learned and modified over the years. All recognize the impact of their personal coaching tactics and willingness to push on player performances and behaviors. These coaches also know that in order to push effectively, coaches must build a strong relationship with athletes and be both tough and caring. No obvious differences exist between wheelchair and stand-up coaches regarding perspectives on coaching.

Philosophies on Success

All coaches embrace personal notions of what it takes to be successful. These ideas are used to shape programs and recruit players. The theme philosophies on success explains coaches' ideas concerning essential attributes for success in sport.

Coaches for wheelchair basketball focused on the importance of self-motivation to achieving success, preferring players who were motivated to work on improving their game while taking care of their health. These coaches explained that self-motivation impacted athletes' sleep, eating habits, and the personal choices regarding alcohol and smoking. Coaches discussed self-motivation as impacting habits on and off the court, stating a preference for athletes who pushed themselves rather than those who waited to be pushed by coach. One wheelchair basketball coach explained it as follows:

   If I have a freshman who comes to me and says, 'Coach I know I'm
   not going to start', I worry a little bit. I like kids coming up
   and saying, 'coach I'm going to look to make the starting line up:
   how do I do that?' That's the kid I want ... (WC13m).

Similarly, a coach explained the importance of having an inner drive; stating, "... When you get down to the nitty gritty, they have to do it. Yes, coach says 70% every spot, what's wrong with 84% ... That's what's going to make them better, the 'want to'"(WC14m). Whether it is setting loftier personal goals than coach set or asking questions to improve, coaches see self-motivation as a necessary quality in achieving success.

Stand-up coaches made similar comments while explaining the value of self-motivation in athletes. "Coaches need to light the fire, but I think it's also self-motivation as well to be able to push yourself as much as you can and then the coach can push you that little bit more" (SU13f). A separate coach stated:

   ... the rules of the NCAA don't let us work with the guys all
   year-round, and in basketball, players are made in the summer and
   teams are made in the winter, and if the player isn't getting
   better in the summer, the team's not going to be as good in the
   winter ... The one's who will be successful will do things I don't
   tell them to do. And I think if I had to pick one word, one phrase,
   it would be self-motivated (SU8m).

Another coached simply said, "... They've got to be driven. You can't come out here and just want to be mediocre because you won't last a day. The competition level is too great ... they've got to be motivated. They've got to be driven ..."(SUI7m). Both groups recognized that coaches are important, but without the innate desire to improve, athletes will not advance.

Other sub-themes identified by wheelchair coaches included talent, knowing how to communicate, being solution focused and using strengths. One coach explained that although possession of the proper mind-set was most significant, athletes also need some level of physical ability as well. In addition, one coach explained the importance of not only having psychological and physical strengths, but also knowing how to use them.

   Part of being successful is always finding what is your strength in
   a particular competitive situation and going to that. Sometimes
   you're going to be the quicker guy; use your quickness. Sometimes
   you're going to be the stronger guy; use your strength. Sometimes
   you're going to have more stamina; draw the competition out.
   Sometimes you're going to be smarter; then use your brains. But
   always find out what is your strength, your opponent's weakness,
   and that's how you play the game (WC10m).

Stand-up coaches also mentioned talent and psychological strengths, focusing primarily on work-ethic, commitment, and preparation. One coach explained that these characteristics may not be innate, but rather learned over time. "... they have to be goal oriented. They have to have a vision of what they want to be. They have to have the work-ethic ... and sometimes they don't have all of that when they start. They have to be taught"(SU1m). The coaches also identified the importance of psychological strengths off the court as well. One coach explained:

   They've got to learn to discipline themselves to maybe not do some
   things that they might normally do if they weren't playing
   basketball. And also in discipline the fact of
   ... work ethic, because they constantly have to work on their game,
   keep their grades up in the classroom, so I think discipline is
   real big. I think time management is major that they have to learn
   because they don't have time to waste (SUI7m).

Coaches expect total commitment because without it athletes and teams will stagnate. The coaches also recognize that all areas of life interact. Athletes who do not commit to school can not excel in sport. Those who are unwilling to sacrifice time will not be successful on the court. This was explained as follows:

   I just think that if you want to excel in it there's a commitment
   and a passion you need to have ... Now, if you're not willing to
   commit to the academic requirements, then you're not going to
   really be able to pursue the athletics to the level you should be
   capable of pursuing it. If you're not committed to some level of
   conditioning, you're not going to be successful. If you're not
   committed to some forms of moderation or all forms of moderation in
   your lifestyle, I don't know how successful you're going to be ...
   (SU6m).

One coach even claimed that work-ethic was more important than talent. This coach stated, "they have to have a work ethic, first and foremost ... They don't have to have the best talent, but if they have a work ethic, they're going to do well ... "(SU13f).

Because not all athletes possess the necessary attributes for success, coaches also identified the importance of having positive role-models to teach new athletes. One coach stated:

   I think you've just got to recruit good people, whether it's your
   staff or your players. If you recruit good people, I think you can
   get them to perform eventually. And if you occasionally get one
   that's a little tricky, I really believe in surrounding them with
   good people and just setting good examples. I think you can mold
   some kids (SU4f).

Coaches explained that athlete-to-athlete education concerning on and off court rules is more effective than coach-to-athlete education. One coach spoke of a situation where he had athletes independently going to practice and watching film in the off-season and shooting baskets at 11:00 at night because they wanted to improve. He explained, "... when I had those seniors and juniors doing it, freshmen and sophomore just did it because as they said, 'we were afraid not to' ... I still have a strong belief that players coach players better than coaches coach players"(SU8m). Another coach explained a similar philosophy, stating:

   You just try and recruit kids that are tough. Bottom line is, it's
   very difficult. You can make kids tougher if you have some good
   examples. If I had a team of all non-touch kids then you have no
   reference point. That's a problem because they just think you're a
   crazy coach who is asking too much ... but then year two we started
   to bring in players that match our level of intensity and suddenly
   it's starting to take on and year three, this is one of the
   toughest groups I'll ever coach in my life ... We have a couple of
   tough nuts on the team that sort of exude that. So, if coach
   demands something, they're like, 'no kidding, she should be.' Their
   attitude is she should be tougher on us, not softer on us ...
   (SU10f).

The primary aspect of the theme philosophies of success concerns the focus from both wheelchair and stand-up coaches on having self-motivated athletes. The main perspectives of stand-up and wheelchair basketball coaches were indistinguishable. The only between group differences concerned stand-up coaches' inclusion of the impact of others on self-motivation, which was not mentioned by wheelchair coaches.

Individual Differences

According to Martens (2004), blending new and old players with diverse personalities, abilities, and backgrounds can be a difficult coaching task. Some coaches claim the importance of equal treatment regardless the differences. However, coaches in the current study focused on the individuality of each of their athletes. Again, no clearly distinguishable differences between the two groups of coaches were evident.

Wheelchair and stand-up coaches recognized the importance of assessing situational needs of all athletes. Both provided evidence of their ability and/or desire to assess the needs of each athlete concerning workouts, personal situations, and motivation. One coach stated:

   Not every kid can run a suicide in under 11 seconds. It's
   impossible, so we work on 110%, 75%, that kind of stuff. Not every
   kid can run the mile in the same amount of time, but we test them
   ... We do the same thing in the weight room. Not every kid is going
   to bench the same, so we don't say every kid has to bench X amount
   of pounds ... (SU4f).

This was corroborated by a wheelchair coach who explained:

   ... we have one kid [name] who when he got to [university name] his
   goal was to play on the U.S. national team ... His goal was to be
   bigger and faster and stronger than anybody else. And so, I make
   sure that he works-out toward that goal ... . I've got another kid
   on my team ... whose goal is to graduate ... and get the best out
   of basketball he can. He hasn't lifted a day that he's been in our
   program ... We get probably 30 minutes a game on the floor from him
   ... (WC4m).

This coach went on to quote John Wooden, former UCLA men's basketball coach, who said, I don't have a double standard, I have 12 standards (WC4m).

The coaches also discussed the need to assess individual differences concerning personal situations, special needs, and motivational styles. After one coach witnessed a disturbance in his athlete's attitude and behavior, he contacted the player's parents, girlfriend and roommate to rectify the issue. Similarly, another coach stated, "... something personal might be going on, and you have to understand that"(SU4f). Here the coaches demonstrated their willingness and readiness to assess individual needs and provide assistance when necessary. SU19f claimed:

   I don't think you can ever say you treat every athlete the same
   because different circumstances come up ... if you have a kid who
   deals with one issue and another kid who has another issue they are
   dealing with, you can't treat those issues the same.

A wheelchair basketball coach was willing to adjust his coaching technique to ensure an athlete could follow his plans. He explained:

   We have some of our students at [university name] with some
   learning disabilities, and I notice across the course of time that
   they don't always understand what you say. It has to be visualized.
   So, what we've developed is certain days during the week where we
   do overhead and video session ... (WC13m).

Whether it is through modifying coaching methods, calling players' friends, or utilizing different motivational strategies, it is evident that coaches from both groups understand the importance of assessing situations and making modifications to benefit athletes.

This strategy of molding coaching style to fit athletes' needs is evident in communication research. Some athletes will say they are motivated when coaches yell at them, while others are resistant to feedback at all. A main principle of reinforcement is that not everyone responds to the same reinforcers (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). The key for coaches is in understanding the motivations of individuals to help them achieve success. One coach explained:

   It depends on the athlete. Some athletes I'll stop the play and
   I'll get right up on them and I'll be like in your face coach.
   Like, 'you've go to kick it into gear'. Other athletes you pull
   them aside and say matter-of-factly, 'I think you have more in you.
   You need to give more. End of story, now do it.' Others you'll be
   more soft-spoken with them, like, 'how do you think your
   performance was today? If you had to rate our intensity right now
   on a scale of 1-10?' So, it depends on the athlete. (WC10m).

A stand-up coach provided a similar quote concerning athlete preference and feedback. She recognized that there was no benefit in utilizing a feedback or reinforcement style that countered a player's need, and she therefore put the responsibility on the coach to learn the style that works best for individual athletes.

Both groups demonstrated a willingness to leam their athletes' likes and dislikes, and make some minor adjustments in their preferred coaching style to fit athletes' needs. However, it was mentioned that as coaches they do possess a comfortable style, which modified too drastically would minimize a coach's effectiveness. Thus, it was concluded by some coaches that not all athletes fit all programs. This was explained as follows:

   I am intense. Not everybody should be coached by me. I had a kid I
   recruited a number of years ago, great kid, nothing wrong with him,
   nothing wrong with me, but it just wasn't a good fit. I was too
   intense. He needed somebody a little bit more laid back, so he
   ended up transferring and that's fine (WC10m). Similarly, a
   stand-up coach claimed, "... at some point in time [we] have to
   have a conversation. This is not for everybody ... "(SU6m).

Overall, individual differences were explained based on athletes' background, roles on the team, qualities, and reasons for playing the sport. Within this theme, coaches spoke sincerely about players they felt they treated appropriately and inappropriately over the years. Coaches discussed athletes who changed over the years and situations they wish they had handled differently. Ultimately results revealed differences in coaching styles among coaches of both groups, but no obvious distinction between the wheelchair and stand-up coaches with regard to their treatment of individual differences on their teams. Both wheelchair and standup coaches recognize that players have personal styles and preferences and although they, as coaches, may be rigid in some of their behaviors, they are willing to modify when it benefits the team.

Thoughts about Athletes

All coaches possessed distinct views of their players. Some coaches for wheelchair basketball claimed their athletes to be motivated and hard working. Others recognized that athletes who work hard on the court are typically motivated in other arenas as well. One coach explained, "all our athletes are pretty highly motivated ... my guys show up on time. They work hard"(WC4m). A very different perspective was shared by a coach who told the story of his induction into coaching. Although his athletes told him, "we don't need you for a mother, we don't need you to take care of us, we need you to coach us"(WC21m), this coach admitted that he was not sure if he was ever truly able to not see the disability. Interestingly, that was the only time the idea of seeing athletes as athletes with disabilities was mentioned by wheelchair basketball coaches. Other perspectives were focused on athletes' potential. A coach explained that he does not believe that most athletes know how good they can be, stating:

   ... I don't think any of them have a clue of how good they can be
   given 3 hours of practice, 5 days a week ... Those that do come in
   with a perceived notion of what they want to accomplish typically
   fall short of the best athletes. They limit themselves. They want
   to be as good as somebody else, instead of their highest capability
   level (WC14m).

Stand-up basketball coaches described their athletes as competitive, hard working, spoiled, and different from years past. Each comment differed from the next, most likely demonstrating the diversity in teams and athletes coached and recruited. One coach said, "They're so competitive in the classroom. They bring that onto the court too. We have a lot of girls if they can't do something, they're like, 'coach I can do this,' So, I've been kind of blessed with that"(SU13f). However, not all comments were positive, as another coach stated:

   ... it is different. 10 years ago what we used to do, now, it's a
   different world. It's instant gratification. Kids want things right
   away and what coaches used to do before, kind of that old Bobby
   Knight style, people get sued and fired over now. Kids, I don't
   know if they're more sensitive or spoiled or if it's just our
   society, but you can't coach kids exactly the way you used to coach
   them (SU4f).

Although athletes may be changing according to the times, one coach explained that college athletes are no different than other students their age. He stated, "... we like to think now-a-days that they've grown up fast and they really haven't. What they'd like to do for the most part is skip a class, go downtown to one of the bars, have some fun, chase girls ... "(SU8m). Regardless whether the difference is in all college students or just athletes, one coach explained, "I think it's just getting harder. I think kids are not as motivated. I think kids don't have the work ethic that we're used to seeing as coaches"(SU10f).

The theme thoughts about athletes identified individual opinions of coaches. There were no obvious similarities among all stand-up coaches and there were no overt similarities among all wheelchair coaches. Therefore it would be impossible to assess differences between the groups. This section clearly demonstrates the difficulty in generalizing the views of all coaches, highlighting individual differences rather than differences in who is being coached.

Ultimately the results of all five themes painted a picture of 14 different coaches and their philosophies, ideas, and beliefs with regard to coaching and athletes. Some similarities exist between and among the coaches. Only minor differences between wheelchair and stand-up coaches were mentioned, while the most convincing findings concern the similar views of coaches across the board and the individuality of opinions and actions regardless the disability status of their athletes. There were some shared beliefs among all coaches with regard to hard work, the significance of self-motivation in success, and the importance of understanding individual differences. However, the real finding was that for as many similarities and differences there were between and among wheelchair basketball coaches, just as many similarities and differences were identified between and among stand-up basketball coaches.

Discussion

Results of the study demonstrate that the sporting world may differ from other areas with regard to views of people with disabilities. The similarities across the lines of the stand-up and wheelchair versions of the sport speak to fact that coaches are more focused on coaching ++ a sport and coaching athletes as opposed to coaching disabilities. The singular differences between wheelchair and stand-up basketball coaches were minor and probably exist because of the larger pool of possible participants in stand-up basketball compared to wheelchair basketball and the more developed nature of stand-up game at the college level. Wheelchair coaches deal with a smaller pool of athletes and less community and school involvement than stand-up basketball coaches. Thus, certain topics and statements would not have been relevant for wheelchair basketball coaches. In addition, wheelchair basketball is still considered to be in its formative years, whereas standup basketball is already well-established. Still, very few differences could be clearly linked to coaching wheelchair rather than stand-up college athletes. Greater differences were uncovered within rather than between the groups.

Researchers approached this study utilizing a sport specific and disability specific perspective. It was assumed that coaches either would be more attuned to the sport or to the disability. Over the years people with disabilities have been held to lower standards than those without disabilities. On the contrary, people in sport are typically held to higher standards. The sport ethic explains widely held views from coaches and athletes on what it takes to be successful in sport. The focus of the "sport ethic" is on making sacrifices, striving for distinction, and taking as many risks as are necessary to succeed (Coakley, 2007). This has been considered standard language among athletes and coaches. Therefore this language should have been apparent from the coaches in this study. Of course, since these are generally considered themes of able-bodied sports programs, it may have been expected that these would be more common among the stand-up basketball coaches than the wheelchair basketball coaches. The results, however, showed that none of the coaches held strongly to these standards. In fact, some explained their expectations for hard work and sacrifice, while others were more concerned with school, religion, and family. Some coaches explained their willingness to push their athletes beyond the limits they set for themselves, while simultaneously recognizing that this can only be accomplished with a sub-sample of their current players.

The philosophies of the coaches in the present study more closely linked to those of the coaches from Bloom's (1996) study. The coaches in the current study clearly explained the importance of adapting, having good people around and identifying a personal coaching style. A stand-up coach claimed, "One of the things that I've learned is that you have to be flexible ... because you always tackle situations that you have no control over" (SU13f). Both wheelchair and stand-up coaches explained the influence of athlete upon athlete, claiming that the best teams function when athletes police each other. They focused on recruiting good people and letting those individuals impact the others. And finally, the coaches in this study demonstrated the importance of knowing and using a personal coaching style. One coach clearly explained this when he said:

   Great coaches don't try to imitate what others do. It's not a
   collection of tools that they've gathered from seeing other people
   and then they use those tools. Good coaches, that's probably what
   they do. They collect the tools that other people use. I think
   great coaches ... understand the process behind each of those tools
   and they are able to take that process and incorporate it in a new
   and different way that makes up their particular coaching style (WC
   10m).

Similar to the coaches in Bloom's study, coaches in the current study also identified the importance of helping athletes develop on and off the fields, respecting and communicating with athletes, and recognizing each player as an individual. These themes correspond to those uncovered from both wheelchair and stand-up college basketball coaches. The coaches in the current study also explained the importance of building relationships with athletes, being soft or tough depending on the situation, and identifying individual needs of the athletes.

It is important to understand coaches' philosophies and expectations because these directly impact players' thoughts and behaviors. According to Merton (1948) expectancy is a situation in which one's perceptions of an individual influence behavior toward that person and due to that treatment, individuals act in accordance to with the initial judgment. For both wheelchair and stand-up basketball players, performances are likely to conform to original expectations of their coaches. Therefore, if coaches see athletes as weak, useless, or disabled; athletes are likely to behave accordingly. The coaches in the current study all explained that they expect 100% effort and great performances, thus their athletes should see themselves as capable of achieving such success.

Originally this paper started as a study of disability. However, it ended as an empirical study of coaches' philosophies and expectations. The primary findings suggest that coaches, regardless the disability status of their players, share certain philosophies. They recognize that athletes must be treated as individuals. They believe it takes hard work and personal motivation to be successful in sport, and athletes can impact each other more than the coach can impact them. Although trends may exist among all coaches, each coach still maintains his/ her own style, beliefs and manners of coaching. For as many similarities that exist between coaches, there are an equal number of differences, regardless if the coach works with athletes of stand-up or wheelchair basketball. These findings provide evidence to the benefits individuals with disabilities may gain from playing sport, as it appears to be one venue where their disability is not a central focus. On the wheelchair basketball court, the wheelchair is not a handicap.

The current paper provides important empirical, but limited evidence to the philosophies and expectations of coaches in both stand-up and wheelchair sport. Results of a few coaches should not be generalized to the entire population; however, results can be used to demon strate both the unity and differences between and among all coaches. Future studies may examine a greater number of coaches and a greater variety of sports. Basketball was useful for comparing coaches for athletes with and without disabilities, but it may be interesting to study individual sports and sports designed specifically for athletes with disabilities. Future studies also may address the athletes and coaches simultaneously to identify if expectations coaches claim to possess are translated clearly to their athletes. In addition, it is important to identify athletes' philosophies and expectations of themselves. These and future findings may be useful for coaches as it may encourage personal contemplation concerning how their own philosophies and expectations impact athlete performance. In addition, the ideas and philosophies posed by the participants may provide insights into the minds of a select group of coaches and coaches for athletes with disabilities.

References

Bogden, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bloom, G. A. (1996). Life at the top: Philosophies of success. In J. H. Salmela (Ed.), Great job coach! Getting the edge from proven winners (pp. 36-65). Ottawa, ON: Potentium.

Coakley, J. J. (2007). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (9th edition). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Davis, N. W., & Meyers, B. B. (2008). When sibling becomes competitor: A qualitative investigation of same-sex sibling competition in elite sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 220-235.

Gould, D., Finch, L. M., & Jackson, S. A. (1993). Coping strategies utilized by national champion figure skaters. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 453-468.

Hardin, B., & Hardin, M. (2003). Conformity and conflict: Wheelchair athletes discuss sport media. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 246-259.

Harris, L. (1991). Public attitudes toward people with disabilities. New York: Louis Harris and Associates.

Horn, T. S., & Lox, C. (1993) The self-fulfilling prophecy theory: When coaches' expectations become reality. In J. M. Williams (ed.). Applied Sport Psychology (pp. 68-81). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Kerr, (2, Berman, E., & De Souza, M. (2006). Disordered eating in women's gymnastics: Perspectives of athletes, coaches, parents, and judges. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 28-43.

Martens, R. (2004). Successful coaching. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Merton, R. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch review, 8, 193-210.

Midanik, L. T., & Greenfield, T. K. (2003). Telephone versus in-person interviews for alcohol use: Results of the 2000 National Alcohol Survey. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 72, 209-214.

Parker, R. M. & Szymanski, E. M. (2005). Rehabilitation counseling: Basics and beyond (4th ed.) Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. 0968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 65-83.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suggs, W. (2004). 'Varsity' with an asterisk. The Chronicle of Higher Education, (February, 13).

Vallee, C. N., & Bloom, t2 A. (2005). Building a successful university program: Key and common elements of expert coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 179196.

Vash, C. L., & Crewe, N. M. (2004). Psychology of disability. New York: Springer.

Warriner, K. & Lavallee, D. (2008). The retirement of elite female gymnasts: Self identity and the physical self. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 30 I-317.

Weinberg, R. S. & Gould, D. (2007). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (4th ed.). Illinois: Human Kinetics.

White, M. J., Gordon, P., & Jackson, V. (2006). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward athletes with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 72(3), 33-40.

Jamie E. Robbins and Eva Houston

Winston-Salem State University

Gail M. Dummer

Michigan State University

Address Correspondence to: Jamie E. Robbins, Dept. of Human Performance & Sport Sciences, 05D Old Nursing Bldg., Winston-Salem State University, Winston-Salem, NC 27106. (336)750-8603. Email: robbinsja@wssu.edu