Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

High-performance coaching is a deeply gendered field of work. Despite international and national efforts, women are still systematically underrepresented in coach education and in leadership positions. For example, at the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, only 13% of the accredited coaches were women. While there is substantial international research on gender inequality in high-performance coaching, in-depth knowledge on the current qualification and work situation of women high-performance coaches is limited. To address this gap, the Women in Sports Coaching: Investigating qualification and professional pathways in German elite sport (QualiFT) study was designed, which we report and reflect on in this protocol. The overarching aim of this mixed-method study is to investigate gender-specific barriers and support factors for women coaches’ career pathways in high-performance sport as well as to develop needs-based solutions in collaboration with key stakeholders. Employing a participatory mixed-methods design across three sub-studies, the project combines a blend of data collection and analysis methods, such as an online survey, biographical mapping interviews, focus group discussions, expert interviews, and document analysis. Statistical evaluation of license and survey data as well as qualitative insights from practitioners, experts and document analysis enable a multifaceted understanding of structural and individual barriers and support factors for gender equity in coaching. In so doing, the study provides a foundation for developing research-based measures to promote gender equity in high-performance sports coaching.

Keywords

participatory research mixed methods gender equity high-performance coaching

Background

Gender equality is a central goal of the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015) to which more than 190 nations committed themselves in 2015. An important sub-goal of this global endeavor is that women “can participate equally in political, economic and public life” (BMZ (n.d.)). This endeavor also applies to organized sport. Traditionally a men-dominated field, sport has seen important changes towards gender equality over the last 40 years. At a sports policy level, there are numerous initiatives, position papers and programs that aim to proactively promote gender equality (International Working Group on Women and Sport (IWG), 2014) and the participation of girls and women in sport has increased significantly. However, despite positive developments at member, athlete and policy level, equal opportunities are still lacking in many areas of the sport system (Clarkson et al., 2019; DOSB, 2016; Europäische Kommission, 2022; Kenttä et al., 2020; LaVoi & Dutove, 2012; Moustakas et al., 2022). The gender gap is particularly problematic in sport governance, with women being severely underrepresented in decision-making positions in sport. The gender imbalance is particularly drastic in full-time management and coaching positions. For example, at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, only 13% of the coaches were women (International Olympic Committee, n.d.). Disbalanced gender ratios are also frequent in the highest levels of high-performance coach education programs. Taking the example of Germany, women coaches represent below 15% on average in the highest license education (Trainerakadmie Köln & Berufsverband der Trainer/innen im deutschen Sport e.V., 2024).

There is substantial evidence suggesting that the gender gap in high-performance sport coaching¹ is caused by a complex mixture of individual, interpersonal, sociocultural and structural factors (Europäische Kommission, 2022; LaVoi et al., 2019). For one, sports coaching is a profession dominated by men, where the lack of women role models, gender stereotypes, hegemonic masculinity, and microaggressions represent obstacles to the career paths of women coaches (Barker-Ruchti et al., 2014; Clarkson et al., 2019). For two, women coaches experience structural discrimination, such as poorer recruitment opportunities, lower pay, lack of coaching opportunities, as well as challenges in balancing work and family life (Hofmann et al., 2014; Weigelt-Schlesinger, 2007). Third, coach education has been found male-centered as it is predominantly designed and delivered by men, with woman educators and gender sensitive teaching and learning methods being rare (Barker-Ruchti et al., 2022; Szedlak et al., 2025). In addition, the lacks of target group-specific training and further education, as well as a lack of networks at the management level, have also been identified as challenges (Allen & Reid, 2019).

Based on these findings, international research concerned with identifying solutions and support factors for the educational and professional careers of women coaches has emerged and different studies examining strategic measures such as mentoring programs, or gender-sensitive education and training measures have been published (Banwell et al., 2019; Harris et al., 2024; LaVoi, 2016; Mbatha et al., 2025; Piggott & Pike, 2020). However, knowledge on the development, implementation and evaluation of strategic measures that address the underrepresentation of women coaches as a sport systemic problem is still limited.

In relation to the outlined state of affairs, three research gaps can be identified: 1.a lack of reliable data on the gender ratios in high-performance coach education and the coaching profession; 2. a lack of knowledge on gender-specific support factors in the coaching pathway and the coping strategies of women, who enter and/or pursue a career pathway in high-performance coaching; 3. knowledge on the design and implementation of innovative measures and support programs aiming to ensure gender-equitable education and working conditions for women coaches in high-performance sport. The overarching objective of the QualiFT-study is to address these gaps and to develop context-specific practical strategies based on sound knowledge of the current situation and the specific causes of the underrepresentation of women high-performance coaches. Germany serves as case and study context. More specifically, we aim to achieve the following:

(1) Statistically evaluate the gender ratios in coaching education licences and in the employment situation of high-performance sport coaches using existing data sets from selected Olympic, non-Olympic and Paralympic sport organizations.

(2) Examine support factors and the persisting barriers in women coaches’ education and career pathways using a mix of methods (online questionnaire, biographical mapping interviews, focus group discussions with coaches and expert interviews).

(3) Identify promising gender equity measures for the sport coaching profession using document analysis, expert interviews as well as Think Tanks.

The findings will support the global and local objectives of gender equality which many nations have committed to achieving. The insights generated may further equip sport organizations to create conditions that are attractive to woman and that assure that high-performance sport benefits of the assets that women can bring into leadership and coaching (Kenttä et al., 2020; Piggott & Pike, 2020).

Theoretical Framing

In this research project, a gender sociological perspective is adopted. Accordingly, women’s educational and professional careers are not conceptualized as individual phenomena, but as genuinely social ones (Hirshfield & Glass, 2018; Risman, 2018). Following Barbara Risman’s theorization, we understand gender as a ‘social structure’ (Risman, 2004, 2018). From this point of view, gender is always simultaneously at work on the individual level (e.g., through gender-specific socialization processes), at the level of social interactions (e.g., through gender-specific stereotypes) and at the organizational level (e.g., through gendered structures). Coaching careers are thus embedded in social frameworks and gender structures which create opportunities and barriers for individual and organizational action. In her work, Risman (2018) further distinguishes between the cultural and material reality of gender structure. As outlined in the current state of research (Clarkson et al., 2019; LaVoi & Dutove, 2012; Norman & Simpson, 2023), both dimensions are reflected in the situation of women coaches in high-performance sport.

Despite the multi-layered effect of gender as a social structure, Risman (2018) also emphasizes that individuals as well as collectives and organizations have the power to shape the social structure through actions, decisions and resistances. By embedding this theoretical understanding into the current project, we conceptualize the lack of gender equity in the high-performance coaching as grounded in the cultural and material gender structures at work in the micro, meso and macro levels of coaches’ lived realities. Further, we posit that individuals, collectives and/or organizations hold the potential to maintain or change gender structures. Based on this theoretical conception of high-performance coaching as socially embedded gendered practice, we employ a mixed-method study design and a participatory process to investigate women coaches’ career pathways in high-performance sport.

Methodology

The 18-month-long QualiFT-study adopts a mixed-method design with a strong focus on qualitative methodologies. Mixed-method designs are particularly well-suited to address complex social issues, such as gender (in)equity in coaching, and they necessitate the integration of qualitative and quantitative data (Poth, 2023). To assure the study’s credibility and meaningful significance (Tracy, 2010), we use a participatory research approach in order to actively involve stakeholders throughout the research process (Brysbaert, 2019). This approach ensures member reflexivity and the meaningful engagement of key stakeholders and organizations at every stage, including study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation (Rich et al., 2025). For this purpose, we have extended the project team with representatives from selected national and regional sport governing bodies, a national coaching academy, an association representing the interests of high-performance coaches, the German Paralympic Sport Federation, and the International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE). Regular feedback loops, meetings and auditing mechanisms with these extended team members throughout the entire research processes will enhance the transparency, context-sensitivity, and reflexivity of the data collection instruments, the data analysis strategies as well as of our findings (e.g., Cena et al., 2024). Reflecting these methodological decisions, the QualiFT-study is divided into three interrelated sub-studies, combining quantitative, qualitative and participatory methods (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Overview of the mixed-method design of the QualiFT-study

Sub-Study 1

Aim and Design

The aim of the first sub-study is to map the coaching qualification and employment situation of high-performance women and men coaches in Germany and to identify gender-specific patterns in this regard. To achieve this aim, we adopt a mixed method design combining the statistical analysis of national level register data (Mellander, 2017) on high-performance coaching qualifications and licences with a qualitative case study (Yin, 2017) of the employment situation of coaches in selected Olympic, non-Olympic, and Paralympic high-performance sport organizations. For further details on sub-study 1 see Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of Data Collection Program of the QualiFT-Study (Adopted from Stone et al. (2021)

Sub- Study	Data source	Sample	Sample size	Data collection methods	Analysis
1	Data on licensed high-performance coaches (license levels A and B)	National register data of valid licenses from 2019-2024	n = 62.096	Data transfer from the German Sport Confederation	Descriptive statistical analysis
1	Data on the graduated students from the national coach academy	National register data of coach academy graduates from 2016-24	n = 543	Data transfer from the national Coach Academy	Descriptive statistical analysis
1	Data on the employment situation of high-performance licensed coaches (A and B)	Sport federations	n = 10	Exploratory interviews & excel file	Thematic content analysis, descriptive statistical analysis
2	Online survey	Women coaches with A- or B-license	n = 550	Online survey (incl. closed, Likert scale, and open-ended questions)	Statistical analysis
2	Focus group discussion	Six focus groups with 4-6 high-performance women coaches	n = 24-30	Focus group interviews	Deductive/inductive content analysis
2	Biographical mapping interviews	High-performance women sports coaches	n = 10	Semi-structured biographical mapping interviews	Deductive/inductive content analysis
2	Expert interviews	Experts on the educational sport system	n = 10	Semi-structured interviews	Deductive/inductive content analysis
3	Organizational documents on gender equity measures and strategies	National and international documents and website information	n = tbd	Online research	Document analysis
3	Think Tanks	Experts, coaches, academics	n = 3	Documentation of the results	Thematic content analysis
3	Online workshop	International high-performance coaches and experts	n = 6	Documentation of the results	Thematic content analysis

Sample and Data Collection

To obtain a comprehensive overview of the current state of coaching qualifications in women and men coaches in German high-performance sport, we will first draw on the national register data of coaching qualifications of national governing bodies of sport (Olympic, non-Olympic, Paralympic), which is administered by the German Olympic Sports Confederation. More specifically, we will conduct a full census of the two highest high-performance coaching licenses (A- and B-license²). To be included in the sample, the license has to (a) be in high-performance coaching, which involves coaching junior or senior athletes who perform “at the highest national level in their sport (i.e., winning the National Championships), or at the highest international level (e.g., World Championships and/or Olympics and Paralympics)” (for similar definition see Christensen, 2013); (b) qualify for either the highest level of performance (required for e.g., head coaches of senior national teams) or the second highest level of performance (required for e.g., coaches of junior national teams); (c) has to have been registered as active at least once during the years 2019–2024. Second, we will sample register data on the qualifications earned by completing the diploma coach study program of the national coach academy (DOSB Coaching Academy Cologne). We will sample all diploma coaching qualifications, which have been (a) successfully completed at the academy (b) obtained during the years 2019–2024. Both register data sets are anonymized and will be transferred to us via a data secure online gateway.

For the case study on the employment situation of high-performance coaches, we will purposefully select a diverse sample of ten Olympic, non-Olympic, and Paralympic national governing bodies of sport, which differ in regard to (a) medal success, (b) membership size; (c) sport profil (team vs individual, summer vs winter sport, multisport vs sport-specific). To establish and recruit the sample of organizations, we will audit suggestions and ask for feedback from our extended project team of sport organization experts. To collect data on the employment status and working conditions of women and men high-performance coaches in these organizations, we will in a first step conduct exploratory qualitative interviews with a key stakeholder in the organization (e.g., chief executive officer, educational or research coordinator) to obtain contextual information on the employment scheme and to jointly evaluate the available data as well as the organizations’ possibilities to compile and share the data. Based on the information obtained, we will establish an interactive data report tool in Excel, featuring categories with drop-down menus to facilitate reporting such as type of employment (full-time, part-time, voluntary), contract duration (permanent, temporary, per hour) or current position (e.g., head coach national team, head coach junior team, regional coach, club coach, etc.). These report tools will be sent to each organization in order to compile information on their coaches’ employment and work situation. The exploratory interviews will be documented through written notes. For further details on sub-study 1 see Table 1.

Data Analysis

To map the coaching qualification situation of high-performance women and men coaches – including gender trends and disparities, the two sets of national register data are analyzed separately. After data cleaning and preparation (e.g., exclusion of missing data, transformation of dates of birth into years of age, classification into age spans etc.), a comprehensive set of data of high-performance coaching licenses of the two highest levels (n = 62.096) and a smaller set of data on high-performance coaching diploma degrees (n = 543) can be established. Descriptive statistics and where possible regression analysis will be used to analyze the gender ratios in coaching qualifications in total, and in relation to license level, type of diploma, clusters of sports, coaches’ age spans, cohorts of license/diploma holders, and regional distribution.

To analyze the case study data on the employment situation of women and men high-performance coaches, we combine quantitative and qualitative procedures: The numeric and textual data of the 10 national governing bodies compiled in the Excel reporting tool will be evaluated using descriptive statistical methods. Particular attention will be paid to (a) type of employment, (b) contract duration, (c) position. The written documentation of the explorative interviews will be qualitatively analyzed (Schilling, 2017) central themes regarding the employment situation of coaches in high-performance sport, gender-specific patterns, and organizational preconditions. Based on these procedures, organization-specific case profiles detailing quantitative and qualitative data on the employment situation will be written.

Sub-Study 2

Aim and Design

The aim of the second sub-study is to examine support factors and the persisting barriers in the coaching education and career development pathways of high-performance women coaches. To achieve this aim, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods is used, including focus group discussions (Krueger & Casey, 2015), an online survey (Grey, 2018) and biographical mapping interviews (Schubring, 2024) with high-performance women coaches as well as expert interviews (Helfferich, 2022) with stakeholders in selected governing bodies of sport and educational organizations. In the development and implementation of the design, we follow principles of knowledge co-creation to improve the contextual relevance of the research strategy and to obtain richer, more nuanced interpretations (Rich et al., 2025) on gender (in)equity in high-performance coaching. For further details on sub-study 2, see Table 1.

Sample and Data Collection

To thoroughly explore support factors and the persisting barriers women coaches experience in high-performance sport, we will purposefully sample (Patton, 1990) women coaches with lived experience of high-performance coach education and coaching work as well as organizational stakeholders that hold expert knowledge in this regard. As a sampling strategy, we aim to combine a homogenous with a sample of variation (Patton, 1990, pp. 172–173) to be both able to describe the situation of women coaches in depth, but also to account for differences in their experiences and their organizations’ preconditions. More specifically, for coaches to participate in the focus group discussions and/or the online survey they need to:

(a) identify as a woman,

(b) hold at least the high-performance coaching B-license,

(d) volunteer to participate.

For the focus group discussion, coaches should also currently participate, or recently have participated, in a high-performance coach education.

Research participants are recruited via the network of project partners. Six focus groups with 4–6 high-performance women coaches per group (n = 24–30) are aimed to be conducted by two researchers. Three focus groups are planned to be sport-specific, and three including a mix of sports to facilitate reflection on both shared and sport specific high-performance coach education experiences. A semi-structured interview guide covering topics such as education access and experiences, working conditions, compatibility of coaching and private life and wishes for change, will be used. Besides open-ended questions, vignettes (Mercer, 2014) in the form of short stories of real-world sexist and discriminatory experiences of women coaches are used to facilitate participant reflection on elicit experiences of barriers and support factors in coach education. Focus group interviews will be audio recorded (ca. 6,5 hr in total) and transcribed verbatim.

For the online survey, the sample is planned to include, in addition to the above listed sample criteria (a–d), a diversity of women who work full-time as high-performance coach, currently participate in high-performance coach education, or have not renewed their high-performance licenses. The aim is to gain in-depth insights into support factors and persisting barriers in different phases of the coaching pathway. The online survey will be designed, trialed, and sent out via a data secured survey system to an estimated sample of ca. n = 550 women high-performance coaches (A- and B-licensed). The survey design will be cross-sectional and will focus on five topics: (a) socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, marital status, family background), (b) educational background including license qualifications, (c) employment situation, and (d) success factors and persistent barriers women may experience within their profession as a high-performance coach. Closed questions (Do you (also) hold a para sport coach license?), Likert-scale questions to express satisfaction (With the education system for sport coaches in Germany, I am …), and open questions (As a woman coach, do you consider more woman coach educators important for the future? If yes, why?)³ are used. To recruit participants, information on the study and the survey is distributed via the central governing body of sport and its member organisations. In a second wave, social media channels, networks and personal contacts are used to distribute the survey to a large audience of high-performance women coaches. Survey responses are automatically registered in the online system and compiled in an Excel sheet.

In addition, biographical mapping interviews (Schubring et al., 2019b) are conducted with a sample of 10 women national head coaches from different sports. Biographical mapping interviews combine life history interviewing with a timeline drawing activity and have been found particularly useful to elicit in-depth biographical experiences, facilitate memory work in participants, and to democratize qualitative interviewing (Schubring, 2024). We again aim to recruit a homogenous sample of maximum variation (Patton, 1990). In addition to the earlier listed sampling criteria (a–d), interview participants need to work as national-level head coaches (of senior or junior athletes) at the time of the interview. We further aim for a mix of sports and number of years in high-performance coaching. Interviews are conducted at a place of convenience for the coaches, using a semi-structured interview guide covering topics such as a) personal and athletic background, b) entry into coaching and career development, c) critical moments, d) support factors and strategies to overcome barriers, and e) wishes for change. Lastly, participants are asked to visualize their career development experiences through timeline drawing using paper and pencil. The interviews are audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Drawings are digitalized and shared with participants.

Flanking the data collection involving high-performance women coaches, semi-structured expert interviews (Helfferich, 2022) are conducted with 10 stakeholders in order to gain insight into organizational perspectives and structures regarding gender (in)equity in coach education and work. Participants are sampled in a first step based on their affiliation to one of the national governing bodies of sport, on which case-studies will be conducted in sub-study 1 (see sampling of organizations in the earlier section). In a second step, potential interviewees are sampled based on their professional role in the organization (e.g., linked to coach education, employment or human resource development) to assure they hold in-depth knowledge about the situation of women coaches. Lastly, we aim for a gender mix and diversity in expert roles. The interviews are conducted online or in person, depending on availabilities. A semi-structured interview guide will be used, covering topics such as a) their role in the specific organization, b) coach education and professional development possibilities, c) recruitment practices and working conditions for women coaches, d) family work balance, e) gender equity support structures; and f) wishes for change. Interviews are audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis

To analyses the multi-methodological data on barriers and support factors for women coaches in high-performance sport, we first analyze each data set separately before we integrated quantitative and qualitative data to present findings along the coaching life cycle/and or case- and audience-specific: The quantitative data from the online survey of ca. 550 women coaches with A- or B-licenses, which corresponds to a sample rate of around 5% of the total national sample of high-performance coaching license holders, is analyzed using descriptive and regression analytical statistically procedures. The qualitative data sets include the transcripts of the six focus group discussions with high-performance women coaches (n = 24–30), which will be analyzed using deductive and inductive content analysis (Schilling, 2017; Sparkes & Smith, 2013) to capture nuanced interpretations of experience of support factors and strategies to overcome barriers in the coaching pathway. Additionally, the ten semi-structured biographical mapping interviews with high-performance women coaches including their drawings is subjected to a case based biographical analysis (Schubring et al., 2019a) to trace individual career trajectories, critical moment as well as support factors and challenges. Transcript of the expert interviews (n = 10) are analyzed using a combined deductive and inductive content analysis approach (Schilling, 2017; Sparkes & Smith, 2013) to identify structural and organization-specific barriers and support factors for gender equity in German high-performance coaching.

Sub-Study 3

Aim and Design

The aim of the third sub-study is to map and to develop innovative and practice-proven measures to promote gender equity in high-performance sport coaching (in Germany). To achieve this aim, we employ a participatory qualitative design involving document analysis (Asdal & Reinertsen, 2022) and various formats of focus group discussions (Krueger & Casey, 2015) with stakeholders and experts. In combining these two qualitative methods, we aim to gain in-depth insights into existing gender-equity measures, develop new ones and discuss limitations and key aspects of successful implementations in international high-performance sport contexts. For further details on sub-study 2, see Table 1.

Sample and Data Collection

Document analysis of international and national policy and program documents will be conducted. To be included in the sample of documents, policies or programs must be: a) Enacted during the last 12 years, b) issued by national umbrella organizations or international governing bodies of sport, c) specific to women coaches in high-performance sport, and d) available either in document format, as web-site news or as internal document. Keyword based online and website searches are conducted and complemented by email requests to sport organizations to assure that comprehensive and valid document bases are established. Based on preliminary web-site searches, relevant documents have been found for the following eight countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, as well as from three international sport governing bodies: The International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Rugby, and the Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA). Documents will be retrieved and saved in digital format in a systematic files structure to prepare for analysis. Key characteristics of the documents will be complied in an excel sheet.

Flanking the document analysis, a total of three Think Tanks and one international expert workshop (n = 6 participants) is organized in which experts, coaches from diverse sports, age spans and experience levels, as well as coach educators, relevant sport governance stakeholders and academics (ca. 25 persons per Think Tank) jointly develop equity measures based on best practices and preliminary results of the project. The Think Tanks aim to collaboratively develop gender equity strategies and implement plans for the coaching profession, based on key needs identified in the first two studies (e.g., support networks, flexibility and gender sensitivity in education, reliable and attractive working conditions, support to balance coaching with care work, and digitalization). The expert workshop focuses on the implementation of gender equity measures in other countries and the learning thereof. Discussions and jointly developed mind-maps from the Think Tanks and the expert workshop in relation to gender equity measures and their implementation will be documented in the form of reports containing textual and visual information.

Data Analysis

To analyze the collated body of documents, deductive and inductive content analysis (Schilling, 2017; Sparkes & Smith, 2013) is employed to systematically evaluate and classify which kind of gender equity measures international policy documents present. In the analysis, we first work case-based per country before using cross-case comparison (Yin, 2015) to establish an empirical typology of gender equity measures and examples. Documentation stemming from the three Think Tanks and the international expert workshop are analyzed thematically to identify gender equity measures specific to different phases of and needs in the high-performance coaching life cycle (LaVoi & Boucher, 2022) as well as their targeting direction (individual or structural).

To sum up the justification of our methodology, Table 1 provides an overview of the mixed-method sampling, data collection and analysis strategies employed across the three sub-studies of the QualiFT-study.

Ethics

Ethics approval has been obtained for this study from the Ethics Committee of the German Sport University (#252/2024) and the research team will adhere to the principles outlined in the European Code of Conduct for Research (ALLEA, 2023) such as informed consent, voluntary participation, participant safeguarding and confidentiality (Sparkes & Smith, 2013). Upon invitation to the study, participants are given comprehensive information about the QualiFT-study. This information includes details about the purpose of each study, the procedures involved, and all potential risks and benefits associated with participation. Participants are also informed about their rights, including the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences (ALLEA, 2023). Confidentiality measures as well as secured data storage for research purposes will be explained. Participants are also assured that their participation is voluntary and that their decision to participate in or decline the study will have no implications on their relationship with the researchers or other relevant institutions. Before participating, participants are required to provide informed consent, in which they express their understanding of the study procedures and their voluntary agreement to participate.

Although no direct physical or psychosocial harm is expected for the participating coaches, experts and organizations, we are aware that especially women coaches may have experienced discrimination, misogyny or other challenges due to their gender and other marginalized dimensions of identity, which may cause discomfort when discussed (Norman & Simpson, 2023; Walker & Bopp, 2010; Weigelt-Schlesinger, 2007). Furthermore, the biographical mapping approach could lead coaches to unintentionally disclose sensitive or traumatic life experiences that go beyond what they had originally intended when agreeing to participate (Schubring, 2024).

To avoid discomfort during the interviews, we assure a safe space for open communication and emotional support during the interviews. Trained interviewers conduct data collection and provide support to participants sharing their experiences. They are also prepared to redirect the interview, check consent forms or provide participants with guidance on available professional support options if need be. In addition, we emphasize confidentiality to ensure that participants feel comfortable speaking without fear of judgment or consequences. They are encouraged to discuss issues freely, making it clear that no disclosures are mandatory and that they can end the conversation at any time if they wish. Particular attention is paid to individual and structural barriers in sub-study 2. The research team strives to create a supportive and empowering research environment that respects the experiences and backgrounds of the participants.

Rigor

The mixed-method study is informed by the criteria for excellence in qualitative research (Tracy (2010). More specifically, the study addresses a timely, both academically and socially relevant topic which resonates with the criteria of a ‘worthy topic’ (Tracy, 2010, p. 840). We implement the criteria of ‘rich rigor’ (Tracy, 2010, p. 841) by using a comprehensive blend of data collection strategies to capture complexity and detail. The multi-tiered sampling approach demonstrates rich rigor through purposeful selection of the participants as well as a strong coherence between research questions, design, and analysis. In addition, great care is paid to the structured documentation and in-depth analysis of the data, which is audited in feedback loops between the research team and the extended project group to guarantee transparency and trustworthiness of the results (Rich et al., 2025). The participatory design also fosters ‘sincerity’ (Tracy, 2010, p. 841) – through researcher reflexivity and open engagement with diverse perspectives - and credibility, by grounding the findings in coaches’ realities. Finally, we search to establish ‘credibility’ through rigor in the research process and the involvement of qualified participants, coaches as well as experts and sport organizations, across all phases, to ensure that the data is grounded in high-performance sport expertise. Overall, this design enhances both the trustworthiness of the findings and their practical value for policy and practice in coach development.

Conclusions

Despite longstanding calls for change, gender inequity is still a reality in many countries for women striving to become or remain high-performance sport coaches. While there is growing scholarship and civic awareness of this matter, comprehensive studies on the support factors in coach education and employment remain limited to few countries. The QualiFT-study will contribute with rich contextual knowledge and innovative strategies which is timely and relevant to governing bodies of sports, policy makers, coach educators and coaches themselves. By using participatory and multi-methodological research strategies, we aim to contribute to capacity development and knowledge sharing already during the life cycle of the project. Additionally, the study can inform future research methodologies focused on qualitatively investigating and changing the situation of women in leadership positions, also outside of sport.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank the partners and organisations that participate in this study.

ORCID iDs

Astrid Schubring

Rebecca Dany

Natalie Barker-Ruchti

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Federal Institute of Sport Science (Bundesinstitut für Sportwissenschaft, BISp), Germany ZMI4-081103/24-26.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

ALLEA . (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity: Revised edition 2023. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC

Allen

J. B.

Reid

(2019). Scaffolding women coaches’ development: A program to build coaches’ competence and confidence. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 27(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2018-0047

Asdal

Reinertsen

(2022). Doing document analysis: A practice-oriented method. Sage.

Banwell

Kerr

Stirling

(2019). Key considerations for advancing women in coaching. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 27(2), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2018-0069

Barker-Ruchti

Lindgren

E.-C.

Hofmann

Sinning

Shelton

(2014). Tracing the career paths of top-level women football coaches: Turning points to understand and develop sport coaching careers. Sports Coaching Review, 3(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2015.1035859

Barker-Ruchti

Purdy

Dudeniene

(2022). It’s on boys! university coach educators and the production, maintenance, and disruption of gender structures. In Norman

(Ed.), Women, sport and physical activity. Improving gender equity in sports coaching (pp. 104–120). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003028642-9

BMZ (n.d.) . SDG 5: Geschlechtergleichheit. Geschlechtergerechtigkeit und Selbstbestimmung für alle Frauen und Mädchen erreichen. https://www.bmz.de/de/agenda-2030/sdg-5

Brysbaert

(2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72

Cena

Brooks

Day

Goodman

Rousaki

Ruby-Granger

Seymour-Smith

(2024). Quality criteria: General and specific guidelines for qualitative approaches in psychology research. A concise guide for novice researchers and reviewers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 16094069241282843. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241282843

10.

Christensen

M. K.

(2013). Outlining a typology of sports coaching careers: Paradigmatic trajectories and ideal career types among high-performance sports coaches. Sports Coaching Review, 2(2), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2014.898826

11.

Clarkson

B. G.

Cox

Thelwell

R. C.

(2019). Negotiating gender in the English football workplace: Composite vignettes of women head coaches’ experiences. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 27(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2018-0052

12.

DOSB . (2016). “Schlüsselfunktion Trainer/in” - Strategische Ziele und Maßnahmen der Sportverbände unter dem Dach von DOSB/dsj. https://cdn.dosb.de/userupload/TrainerInSportdeutschland/SchluesselfunktionTrainerIn-Diskussionspapier.pdf

13.

Erickson

Côté

Fraser-Thomas

(2007). Sport experiences, milestones, and educational activities associated with high-performance coaches’ development. The Sport Psychologist, 21(3), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.21.3.302

14.

Europäische Kommission . (2022). Für mehr Geschlechtergleichberechtigung im Sport: Empfehlungen und Aktionsplan von der Hochrangigen Gruppe für Geschlechtergleichberechtigung im Sport (2022). Amt für Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Union.

15.

Grey

(2018). Chapter 14 - Questionnaires and surveys. In Grey

(Ed.), Doing research in the real world (pp. 341–375). Sage.

16.

Harris

Jones

Santos

(2024). Alienation, othering and reconstituting: An alternative future for women’s coach education. Quest, 76(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2023.2258245

17.

Helfferich

(2022). Leitfaden- und Experteninterviews. In Baur

Blasius

(Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 875–892). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37985-8_55

18.

Hirshfield

L. E.

Glass

(2018). Scientific and medical careers: Gender and diversity. In Risman

B. J.

Froyum

C. M.

Scarborough

W. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 479–491). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76333-0

19.

Hofmann

Sinning

Shelton

Lindgren

E.-C.

Barker-Ruchti

(2014). “Football is like chess – you need to think a lot”: Women in a men’s sphere. International Journal of Physical Education, 51(4), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-6073-2014-4-20

20.

International Olympic Committee . (n.d.). Female coaches: The international olympic committee (IOC) and the olympic movement have worked hard for the olympic games to become the largest gender-equal sporting event in the world. https://www.olympics.com/ioc/female-coaches

21.

IWG . (2014). Brighton plus Helsinki 2014 declaration on women and sport. https://iwgwomenandsport.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Brighton-plus-Helsinki-2014-Declaration-on-Women-and-Sport.pdf

22.

Kenttä

Bentzen

Dieffenbach

Olusoga

(2020). Challenges experienced by women high-performance coaches: Sustainability in the profession. International Sport Coaching Journal, 7(2), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2019-0029

23.

Krueger

R. A.

Casey

M. A.

(2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Sage. https://permalink.obvsg.at/AC13296436.

24.

LaVoi

N. M.

(2016). Women in sports coaching. Routledge research in sports coaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734651

25.

LaVoi

N. M.

Boucher

C. J.

(2022). Supporting and developing women in sport coaching. In Norman

(Ed.), Women, sport and physical activity. Improving gender equity in sports coaching (pp. 177–197). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003028642-14

26.

LaVoi

N. M.

Dutove

J. K.

(2012). Barriers and supports for female coaches: An ecological model. Sports Coaching Review, 1(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2012.695891

27.

LaVoi

N. M.

McGarry

J. E.

Fisher

L. A.

(2019). Final thoughts on women in sport coaching: Fighting the war. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 27(2), 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2019-0030

28.

Mbatha

van Rensburg

N. J.

Morris-Eyton

(2025). A systematic review investigating mentorship programmes for women in coaching and leadership roles in sport. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 20(4), 17479541251333931. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541251333931

29.

Mellander

(2017). On the use of register data in educational science research. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2017.1313680

30.

Mercer

(2014). Vignette research. In McIntosh-Scott

Mason

Mason-Whitehead

Coyle

(Eds.), Key concepts in healthcare research (pp. 130–134). Sage.

31.

Moustakas

Raub

Moufagued

Petry

(2022). From sport to work? Exploring potentials in a Moroccan sport-for-employability programme. Youth, 2(4), 759–771. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth2040054

32.

Nordmann

(s.a.). Kurzinformationen zum Studium an der Trainerakademie Köln des DOSB. Trainerakademie Köln. https://www.trainerakademie-koeln.de/sites/default/files/kurzinfos_studium.pdf

33.

Norman

Simpson

(2023). Gendered microaggressions towards the “only” women coaches in high-performance sport. Sports Coaching Review, 12(3), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2021.2021031

34.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage. https://permalink.obvsg.at/AC00133233.

35.

Piggott

L. V.

Pike

E. C. J.

(2020). CEO equals man’: Gender and informal organisational practices in english sport governance. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 55(7), 1009–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690219865980

36.

Poth

C. N.

(2023). Dilemmas and opportunities for mixed methods research design: Handbook introduction. In Poth

C. N.

(Ed.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods research design. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682663

37.

Rich

K. A.

Smith

Giles

A. R.

(2025). Participatory research in sport and physical activity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003430339

38.

Risman

B. J.

(2004). Gender as a social structure. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349

39.

Risman

B. J.

(2018). Gender as a social structure. In Risman

B. J.

Froyum

C. M.

Scarborough

W. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 19–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76333-0

40.

Schilling

(2017). Qualitative content analysis in leadership research: Principles, process and application. In Schyns

Hall

R. J.

Neves

P. D.

(Eds.), Handbooks of research methods in management series. Handbook of methods in leadership research (pp. 349–371). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367281.00023

41.

Schubring

(2024). Biographical mapping interviews. In Rich

K. A.

Smith

Giles

A. R.

(Eds.), Participatory research in sport and physical activity (pp. 126–140). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003430339-12

42.

Schubring

Barker-Ruchti

Post

Pettersson

(2019a). Researching health behaviour in ‘real time’: Methodological insights from a prospective study on olympic hopefuls. Methodological Innovations, 12(1), 205979911984097. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799119840976

43.

Schubring

Astrid

Mayer

Jochen

Thiel

Ansgar

(2019a). Drawing Careers: The Value of a Biographical Mapping Method in Qualitative Health Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918809303

44.

Sparkes

A. C.

Smith

(2013). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852187

45.

Stone

N. I.

Thomson

Tegethoff

(2021). Ask a midwife: A qualitative study protocol. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 16094069211048383. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211048383

46.

Szedlak

Callary

Eagles

Gearity

B. T.

(2025). An exploration of how dominant discourses steer U.K. strength and conditioning coach education. Sport, Education and Society, 30(4), 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2024.2318650

47.

Tracy

S. J.

(2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

48.

Trainerakadmie Köln, & Berufsverband der Trainer/Innen im Deutschen Sport e.V . (2024). 20 Trainerinnen für Team D bei Olympia.

49.

United Nations . (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.

50.

Walker

N. A.

Bopp

(2010). The underrepresentation of women in the male-dominated sport workplace: Perspectives of female coaches. Journal of Workplace Rights, 15(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.2190/WR.15.1.d

51.

Weigelt-Schlesinger . (2007). Geschlechterstereotype - Qualifikationsbarrieren von Frauen in der Fußballtrainerausbildung? Universität Tübingen.

52.

Yin

R. K.

(2015). Case studies. In Wright

J. D.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioural sciences (2nd ed., pp. 194–201). Elsevier.

53.

Yin

R. K.

(2017). Case study research design and methods (7th ed.). Sage.

Investigating Qualification and Professional Career Pathways of Women Coaches in High-Performance Sports: A Mixed Method Study Protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Background

Theoretical Framing

Methodology

Sub-Study 1

Aim and Design

Sample and Data Collection

Data Analysis

Sub-Study 2

Aim and Design

Sample and Data Collection

Data Analysis

Sub-Study 3

Aim and Design

Sample and Data Collection

Data Analysis

Ethics

Rigor

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Notes

References