DOI: 10.7488/ds/7977
title: Adapting Global Coach Education Approaches within the Chinese Context: Coaches’ and Coach Developers’ Perceived Challenges, Cultural Influences and Pathways to Expertise

description: Background: Global coach education has shifted focus in recent decades, moving from prescriptive, competency-based training towards expertise-based approaches that prepares for complex coach–learner interactions. However, adopting one-size-fits-all coaching approaches across cultures is problematic, since there is potential to overlook important pedagogic and social norms. In China, coach education remains centrally administered and assessment-driven, with a structured certification hierarchy that contrasts starkly with Western approaches that centre on reflective practice. These contextual differences present a mismatch between China’s current competency-based system and the expertise-development approach emerging internationally. Purpose: This study investigates the cultural and pedagogical complexities of introducing a Western expertise-based coach education approach in China. It explores Chinese coach developers’ and coaches’ perceptions of (1) the current versus their ideal coach education systems, (2) how cultural factors (e.g., power distance, learning habits) influence these systems, and (3) the challenges in transitioning from the existing competency-based to an expertise-based approach. The aim is to better understand how cultural context and educational beliefs shape coach development opportunities, and to inform future coach education practice reforms. Methods: A mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) online survey required participants from China (N = 119; 87 coaches and 32 coach developers) to rate using a Likert-scale, items that addressed competency-based versus expertise-based coaching approaches in various scenarios, cultural factors (e.g., attitudes to authority, preference for structured learning) and potential transition challenges, plus open-ended questions for additional comments. Independent t-tests and MANOVA with post-hoc tests examined differences between coaches and coach developers, while thematic analysis was used to present qualitative feedback. Results: While participants showed interest in a more expertise-based approach, their overall preference remained for familiar, competency-based structures. Coach developers were significantly more inclined to view the current system as lacking in expertise-focus and to desire a more expertise-based system. Correspondingly, coach developers differed from coaches on several cultural attitude measures: notably, they reported emphasis on youth development being positive to coach education systems, whereas the attitude and behaviours towards uncertainty and learning habits/styles are relatively negative to the systems. Both groups, however, identified similar challenges to adopting an expertise-based approach, particularly a ‘need for more knowledge’ and difficulties with assessment and certification processes. Qualitative comments (from a subset of respondents) echoed concerns about entrenched habits, institutional resistance to change, and the lack of role models to exemplify the new approach. Discussion and Conclusion: Overall, this study highlights a clear mismatch between the current competency-based and an envisioned expertise-based approach. Data suggests that any transition in China towards an expertise-based coach education system will need to be gradual and culturally sensitive, blending new reflective practices into the existing structure to ensure buy-in and sustainability.