Title

Parental Responses to Professional Behaviors in Coaching and Teaching.

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Sport Science Review

ISSN

20668732

Volume

21

Issue

5/6

First Page

69

96

Publication Date

2012

Abstract

While many believe there is a societal role in the development of personal morals and ethics, the outcome is still an individualized approach for navigating the complex world in which we live. Forsyth (1980) offers one such theoretical perspective in which he posits that one's ethical behaviors are a reflection of one's moral philosophy. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of one's moral philosophy on perceptions of professional behaviors in the teaching and coaching setting. Specifically, researchers were interested in (a) differences in parents' perceptions of professional behavior given the principal actor in the situation (i.e., teacher or coach) and (b) differences in parents' perceptions of professional behavior given their individual moral philosophy (i.e., Situationist, Absolutist, Exceptionist, and Subjectivist). Participants in the study (N = 210) were asked to complete the Ethics Position Questionnaire and respond to a series of ethically toned situations reflecting either the coaching or teaching environment. Results indicate few differences exist in parental perceptions of professional behaviors in the teaching and coaching setting. However, one's moral philosophy did influence responses on two of the scenarios (racial stereotyping and the use of harsh language). Results support the need for further research on professional behaviors and contextualized morals in the sport setting, specifically to better understand the moral lens through which parents perceive the behaviors of coaches and teachers. Results also support the need for a model of coaching education similar to that of teacher education.

Publication Information

MURRAY M, BODEY K, SCHOENSTEDT L, DIEFFENBACH K. Parental Responses to Professional Behaviors in Coaching and Teaching. Sport Science Review [serial online]. December 2012;21(5/6):69-96