I feel like I’m stuck: analysis paralysis. I want to look at talent identification and talent development, and it seems like the literature is pointing me in a few directions:
- the nature vs. nurture debate, which includes deliberate practice
- structured trauma, which relates to mental toughness, resiliency, and at times grit and growth mindset
- deliberate practice itself, which includes varying definitions (e.g. is competition deliberate practice?)
There is so much breadth to consider, but what if we started from the top instead? If we have a Gold Medal Profile, we can consider winning style of play and performance results tracking (ahhh… good old KIN 515). If we projected backwards from the top, we can create a podium pathway. However, there is some evidence in the literature that the best athletes weren’t necessarily the best when they were young.
So what do I even look at? It feels like I’m going in circles.
But wait, what would an athlete need to stay on that pathway? Are there key traits that would keep them from quitting? What would it take to keep an athlete on a podium pathway in their sport?
From a Gold Medal Profile standpoint, it would likely be in the Psychological domain. If it’s necessary to keep them on the pathway, then it may be useful to consider and find a way to measure it. Growth mindset and grit appear to come up in the literature, including other aspects, like mental toughness and resiliency. Growth mindset and grit also seem to be linked to deliberate practice, which is likely a necessity in the development of the other GMP parameters.
Can this be linked back to talent identification and development? Maybe “showing up is 80% of (sport) life” as well, wisdom from Woody Allen. You have to show up to be on the pathway, and maybe the last 20% is staying on the pathway.
No, it’s probably 20% showing up, and 80% trying to stay in the pathway. That probably takes deliberate practice.
So have we almost gone full circle?
Questions:
- Do you agree or disagree? What do you think it takes?
- What are the major Psychological attributes you would consider for your sport? Would this be unique to the sport, or are there similarities that all sports share?
- Does this apply less to team sports? Making a team is another problem most of the time, as you can’t show up if you’re technically not on the team!
The GMP and deliberate practice are not mutually exclusive. As Ericsson suggests those who engage in Deliberate practice seek out and study expert performance. Therefore knowing what expert performance looks like is critical for identify deliberate practice. If you were to prove your tactical model for playing badminton, you may be able to determine the extent to which athletes are from the optimal tactical measure to be top in the world. Comparing Canadians to this measure will inform their gap to expertise. Eg. what is the specific tactics that they need to develop to become expert and ensure that they are getting quality augmented feedback? The challenge here is whether some other researcher has already defined the tactical probability model in badminton and whether you can use this to compare Canadians. If not you will need to prove your tactical probability model first (Study 1), then look at the pathway characteristics that are necessary for Canadians to get there. Already, I am showing a bias that Canadian lack the tactical expertise to be the best in the world.
Hey Toby,
Great post. Of course your mind has found a way around to a great idea and research question. I enjoyed the visual you created as well. Hopefully the literature review has worked out for you, and you are on your way to the next phase.
All the best,
Jesse