Yapabilirim Ama Yapmıyorum! Antrenörlerin Sportmenlik İkilemi

Öz

Futbolun rekabetçi doğası birçok gerilime ve dramatik yankılanmalara sebep olabilmekte ve bütün paydaşlar bu duruma tepki verirken benzersiz ahlaki zorluklarla karşılaşabilmektedir. Bu noktada sahadan yansıyan sportmence ya da sportmenlik dışı davranış ve tutumların önemli bir bölümünün antrenörün sorumluluğunda olduğu düşünülmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada antrenörlerin sportmenliğe yönelik öz-yeterlikleri ve yeterlikleri arasındaki farkların incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın araştırma grubunu; aktif olarak bir grupla çalışan, profesyonel (%46) ve amatör (%54) düzeyde görev yapan 124 futbol antrenörü oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın veri toplama aracı üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde demografik bilgiler, ikinci bölümde Antrenörlerin Sportmenlik Öz-Yeterliği Ölçeği son bölümde ise ilgili ölçeğin her bir alt boyutu için hazırlanan ikişer senaryo yer almaktadır. Araştırma bulguları, antrenörlerin sportmenlikle ilgili senaryolara verdikleri cevapların sportmenlik öz-yeterliği bağlamında anlamlı farklılığa sebep olmadığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca hem profesyonel düzeyde çalışan antrenörler hem de amatör düzeyde çalışan antrenörler kendi içlerinde değerlendirilmiş ve yine anlamlı bir farka rastlanmamıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, antrenörlerin sportmence davranmaya yönelik inançlarının yüksek olduğunu ancak müsabakanın sonucunu etkileyebilecek olası durumlarda sportmence davranmadıklarını göstermektedir. Dünyanın her yerinde tutku ile takip edilen futbol müsabakalarının başrollerinden biri olan antrenörlerin bu çelişkili davranış ve tutumları, sporun topluma yansıması beklenen değerlerini baltaladığını göstermekte dolayısıyla arzu edilen spor ortamlarının maalesef hedefe giden her yol mubahtır ilkesiyle yürütüldüğü anlaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ahlaki ikilem
• Öz-yeterlik
• Sportmenlik
• Futbol antrenörleri

I Can, But I Don't! Coaches' Sportsmanship Dilemma

Abstract

The competitive nature of football can lead to various tensions and dramatic repercussions, presenting unique ethical challenges for all stakeholders involved. It is widely believed that a significant portion of the displayed sportsmanship or unsportsmanlike behavior and attitudes on the field falls under the responsibility of coaches. Therefore, this study aims to examine coaches' self-efficacy regarding sportsmanship through various scenarios. The research group of this study consists of 124 football coaches actively working with a group, encompassing both professional (46%) and amateur (54%) levels. The data collection instrument comprises three sections. The first section gathers demographic information, the second section includes the Coaches' Sportsmanship Self-Efficacy Scale, and the final section consists of two scenarios prepared for each subscale of the relevant scale. Results indicate that coaches' responses to sportsmanship-related scenarios do not result in significant differences in terms of sportsmanship self-efficacy. Furthermore, both coaches working at the professional level and those working at the amateur level were evaluated within their respective groups, revealing no significant differences. The results of the study demonstrate that while coaches have a firm belief in sportsmanlike behavior, they do not necessarily act in a sportsmanlike manner in situations that could potentially impact the outcome of the competition. These conflicting behaviors and attitudes of coaches, who play a prominent role in football matches passionately followed worldwide, undermine the expected values that sports should reflect in society. Consequently, it becomes evident that desired sports environments are unfortunately being conducted based on the principle that "the end justifies the means."

Keywords

• Moral dilemma
• Self-efficacy
• Sportsmanship
• Football coaches

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, İ., & Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. (2023). Antrenörlerin sportmenlik öz-yeterliği: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 28(2), 78-91.
2. Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
3. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 45-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
5. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age.
6. Bandura, A., (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. Boardley, I. D. (2018). Coaching efficacy research: learning from the past and looking to the future. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 214-237.
8. Boardley, I. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development and validation of the moral disengagement in sport scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29(5), 608-628.

9. Bolter, N. D., Kipp, L., & Johnson, T. (2018). Teaching sportsmanship in physical education and youth sport: Comparing perceptions of teachers with students and coaches with athletes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 209-217.
10. Ciairano, S., Gemelli, F., Molinengo, G., & Musella, G. (2007). Sport, stress, self-efficacy and aggression towards peers: unravelling the role of the coach. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 11(1), 175-194.
11. Clifford, C., & Feezell, R. M. (2010). Sport and character: Reclaiming the principles of sportsmanship. Champaign: Human Kinetics
12. Constandt, B., De Waegeneer, E., & Willem, A. (2019). Ethical code effectiveness in football clubs: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 621-634.
13. Durkheim, E. (2014). The rules of sociological method (W. D. Halls, Trans.) New York: The Free Press.
14. Feltz, D. L., & Lirgg, C. D. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams and coaches. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (pp. 340-361). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference New York: Routledge.
16. Hamilton, M. G., & LaVoi, N. M. (2017). Ethical professional identity and the development of moral exemplar collegiate coaches. Journal of Moral Education, 46(2), 114-128.
17. Hamilton, M. G., & LaVoi, N. M. (2020). Coaches who care: Moral exemplars in collegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 32(1), 81-103.
18. Hardman, A., Jones, C., & Jones, R. (2010). Sports coaching, virtue ethics and emulation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(4), 345-359.
19. Higham, A. J., Newman, J. A., Stone, J. A., & Rumbold, J. L. (2021). Coaches’ experiences of morality in English professional football environments: Recommendations for creating a moral atmosphere. International Sport Coaching Journal, 9(2), 211-221.
20. Jackson, B., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2010). Self-efficacy as a metaperception within coach–athlete and athlete–athlete relationships. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(3), 188-196.
21. Kavussanu, M. (2008). Moral behaviour in sport: A critical review of the literature. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(2), 124-138.
22. Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I. D. (2009). The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(1), 97-117.
23. Kavussanu, M., Seal, A. R., & Phillips, D. R. (2006). Observed prosocial and antisocial behaviors in male soccer teams: Age differences across adolescence and the role of motivational variables. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18(4), 326-344.
24. Lirgg, C. D., Dibrezzo, R., & Smith, A. N. (1994). Influence of gender of coach on perceptions of basketball and coaching self-efficacy and aspirations of high school female basketball players. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 3(1), 1-14.
25. Naylor, A. H. (2007). The coach's dilemma: balancing playing to win and player development. Journal of Education, 187(1), 31-48.
26. Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
27. Romand, P., & Pantaléon, N. (2007). A qualitative study of rugby coaches’ opinions about the display of moral character. The Sport Psychologist, 21(1), 58-77.
28. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581-592.
29. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. (2009). Fair play and empathy: A research study with student teachers. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 6(4), 79-84.
30. Sezen-Balçıkanlı, G. (2014). Fair play in professional sports: Sportspersonship orientations of futsal players. FairPlay, Revista de Filosofia, Ética y Derecho del Deporte, 2(1), 33-49.
31. Spruit, A., Van Vugt, E., Van Der Put, C., Van Der Stouwe, T., & Stams, G. J. (2016). Sports participation and juvenile delinquency: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(4), 655-671.
32. van der Bijl J. J., & Shortridge-Baggett L. M. (2001). The theory and measurement of the self-efficacy construct. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice. 15(3), 189-207.
33. Vidoni, C., & Ulman, J. D. (2012). The fair play game: Promoting social skills in physical education. Strategies, 25(3), 26-30.