This study used a qualitative action research as a research design and method. It can be argued by the quantitative researchers that in using this method there is the absence of distance between the researcher and the object of study, and results will be distorted (Abusabha & Woelfel, 2003). Therefore it is recommended to use
mixed-method models. Abusabha and Woelfel (2003, 568) provide three reasons for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: “First, and most notably, all data have both objective and subjective components… Second, using different methods to answer the same question allows researchers to cross validate results…
Third, mixing the two methods cancels out, somewhat, their corresponding weaknesses…”
There are always some aspects that limit the knowledge collected in a single qualitative study (Olsen, 2012). Questions like how to present the collected data, how to leave out individual opinions and thoughts, and what information to report.
This report may only reflect the experiences of researcher and student-athletes who felt sufficiently motivated to join the squad. Senior students, both students-athletes and non-athletes, were expected to join as participants but in the end, the participants were all student-athletes’ and none of senior students participated, which further limits the generalizability of the experiences that were told (McKenna & Dunstan-Lewis, 2004). It would have been important to compare ideas, feelings, and thoughts of these two high school students groups. Generic aims and indicators can only represent the starting point of a process (Martindale
& Collins, 2007).
One important aspect to be noted in an action research like this is the dual role of a teacher and researcher. When doing an action research there is always an interesting dilemma inside the study; how to avoid the role of a teacher when doing an action research study but take the role of a researcher. An action research approach provided specific guidance for many of the skills that may be required for the different contexts and problems to which these skills can be applied (school, sports, work interviews etc.). In this case, the knowledge base of the researcher, regarding to PST, was limited in the beginning of the program and that must also keep in mind when reading the narratives and the results of this story.
This study wanted to reveal the “effectiveness” of a PST in a way that what mattered was how the participants experienced the program, and if it was beneficial for them. It remained unclear if the program actually helped the participants to deal with stressors they face in their everyday lives, which was one theoretical
foundation of this study. Therefore although the indicators identified are important, it is suggested that they do not represent the full picture of what can indicate effectiveness in applied sport psychology practice (Martindale & Collins, 2007).
One limitation in this study was the timeline. The course should have been promoted properly in the beginning of the semester and maybe I as a researcher and teacher should have gone there and introduce the program and its contents ahead for the group of students. The program had only 4 participants and it can be seen as a setback but I am sure there will be more participants in the next course as one participants said: “I will definitely spread the word to other students; this course was really good and beneficial to me”. This kind of experience is the best promotion for the future courses.
A grand limitation that must be pointed out is that this was my first independently planned high school course. My inexperience in planning a complete course was obvious as well as in implementing a PST; I need more real life experience in psychological skills teaching to overcome certain shortages. There should have been more material in the “teacher’s toolbox” when something sudden happened, for example when there was some extra time left to use. My own inexperience in using these taught skills was one other shortcoming. I need to learn how to apply these skills in my own life, to be able to teach them properly for students. I had a good theoretical background with concepts used but I lacked practical know-how.
It is the students right to get a good service.
The previously mentioned material bank or toolbox should have been inclusive because in the school environment every lesson is different despite the fact that you are teaching the same students. It might happen that the computer or some other electric device is not working so it is good to have a fallback. I tried to plan every lesson way ahead but still, surprises were sometimes on their way. To overcome this previously mentioned limitation (inexperience), it would have been wise to read e.g. Stringer’s (2014) guidebook, Action Research in Education before even starting the planning of this particular PST program. I read the book completely just after I had finished most of my theoretical and practical work but it would have
benefited me mostly in the beginning of the process of planning, implementing and evaluating this PST program.
Action research like other dynamically objective approaches is much harder to generalize than quantitative work, requiring new standards of validity, reliability, and trustworthiness (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). This is even truer in participatory action research, where the validity of the research is defined by the context of researchers or participants, as opposed to an independent group of scientists. In this case, abstract generalizability was de-emphasized while other criteria such as the generation of usable knowledge that generalized to a growing proportion of an individual’s life was offered in its place (Gee, 2010, 386).
The last problem or limitation toward my program was a follow-up. According to Weinberg and Gould (2015) problems could be faced when you are implementing a PST program but you are not going to follow-up what was learned and used in the field. My duty and contract as a teacher ended at the same time this course ended and grades had been given. My initial plan and idea as a practitioner was to keep in touch with my participants and they were asked to contact me anytime they felt like it, also after the classroom sessions were over. The nature of this intervention made it a little challenging because we were not in a student-athlete-coach relationship but as a student- teacher and a student- researcher relationship.
This is something that was an undisputed limitation in my program.