Coaching Generation Z: Practice from a different perspective and base

Abstract

First paragraph: We would like to sincerely thank Gould et al. (Citation2023) for their considered and reflexive response to our commentary. Stating that they took a pragmatic approach to trying to understand the phenomenon of coaching Gen Z athletes, trying to answer questions for a very applied audience, Gould et al. outlined several areas of agreement, as well as some areas of strong disagreement. In terms of alignment, Gould et al. reiterated that a more diverse sample (currently, single sport; high economic status) is needed and alerted readership to a forthcoming second study that involves interviewing college coaches and athletes from different sports. They were appreciative of the critical literature that we introduced and concurred that researchers should employ a range of frameworks to understand the topic of generation going forward. There were other areas of consensus. These included the need for greater emphasis on the possibility of generational stereotyping, being cognizant of the potential for generational power imbalances, and acknowledging the critically important role of the environment in the contextualization of knowledge and knowledge utilization. In particular though, Gould et al. disagreed with our assertion that ‘generation’ could be a conceptually problematic or oversimplified category for analysis. They also rejected our assertions of objectivism and determinism, as well as the observation that some coach participants in their descriptions almost seemed to pathologize young people’s behavior in the form of negative, problematizing generalizations. Overall, in spite of several concerns we presented (e.g., definitional and conceptual unclarity, mixed evidence, limited predictability, the possibility of generational concepts to do harm and conflate explanatory phenomenon), Gould et al. retain a steadfast overall faith in the their construct of generation and study of it; drawing on their own observations to make useful clarifications and additional reflections on the original article and using recent work by Jean Twenge to dispel concerns and to argue for the continued usefulness of studying generations.