Read on Twitter
1/12 There have been concerns raised about concepts we have been developing over 20+ years.Discourse has played over social media,with many not fully understanding our stance. For clarity,this thread offers an accurate overview of the work.Happy to talk with those happy to listen
2/12 Rocky Road 2012: “talented potential can benefit from,or even need,a variety of challenges to facilitate adult performance…built on evidence that such challenges are common in athletes who reach the top” We stress well supported individual challenge https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231213208_The_Rocky_Road_to_the_Top_Why_Talent_Needs_Trauma
3/12 This conceptual piece was followed by a flurry of other literature which presented concerns to us. Others (NOT us) suggested life trauma as ESSENTIAL feature for high achievers. These ideas receive high level endorsement and ongoing publications BUT no questioning on Twitter
4/12 In contrast, our 2016 Superchamps paper found “no evidence of the necessity of major trauma as a feature of development”. in contrast that “differences between levels of adult achievement relate more to what performers bring to the challenge”.
5/12 We develop this skills approach, stressing the need for skill development up front. We offer coaches some ways to do this in subsequent papers. We also test for and DO NOT find life trauma as "essential for eventual success" as suggested by others http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009/full?utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Psychology&id=171615
6/12 ‘Bumps in the road’ in 2016 highlighted differences between our position and others. Suggesting ways to optimise development pathways it warned against “potential for the trauma ideas to lead practitioners (and researchers) astray”. contrasting our proactive skills approach
7/12 Bumps offers practical advice and exemplars of how to do this in a safe and ethical way http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00823/full?&utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Psychology&id=234682
8/12 Savage et al. 2017 suggests that a traumatic event acts as a ‘skill proving’ rather than ‘skill causing’ event, testing developed skills rather than causing performance improvement.“As such, talent appears to need trauma, rather than be caused by it”
http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/14682/1/Savage%20et%20al%202016_Exploring%20Traumas%20in%20the%20Development%20of%20Talent.pdf
http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/14682/1/Savage%20et%20al%202016_Exploring%20Traumas%20in%20the%20Development%20of%20Talent.pdf
9/12 This paper investigated those with high potential who fell away. Critical features were a lack of psych-skills and inappropriate challenge (often too low or too high for poor skills). Once again, skill development is pushed with high challenges used
http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/24864/1/24864%20Final%2520Manuscript%2520.pdf
http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/24864/1/24864%20Final%2520Manuscript%2520.pdf
10/12 So since the original paper mentioning trauma, we have offered evidence on the type and timing of challenge needed, in contrast to other work which offers “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. Our work is careful and applied. Furthermore, we offer coaches ways to work
11/12 We are concerned to have our work implicitly linked to abusive coaching practice in domains that we have had no engagement with. Our work is supported by those who have truly engaged and taken the time to consider the ideas. Attacks seem,against our stance, somewhat unfair!
12/12 In summary, there are critical messages for coaches that should be developed through nuanced understanding from quality coach developers OR questioned through peer review research. Please take time to read the work. Happy to help those genuinely interested to engage. Thanks
