This thesis explores the application of Motivational Interviewing (MI) within the context of sports coaching, examining its influence on coach-athlete communication and athlete motivation. The study addresses the need for effective communication strategies in sports coaching, which is a distinctive discipline requiring a blend of science and art. The research uses a mixed-methods design, employing both qualitative and quantitative data to investigate the perceived and experiences of MI training for coaches, along with the impact of MI training and an ongoing learning community on coaching practices and athlete engagement within conversations. The research includes two studies: Study 1 involved focus groups with ten coaches (n=10), from diverse sporting backgrounds, to explore their perceptions of integrating MI within their coaching. The coaches identified several challenges to implementing MI, including time constraints, cultural norms, competitive pressures, and the variable engagement and readiness of athletes for change. Coaches identified barriers to consistent MI application, including challenges in fostering behaviour change, especially with younger athletes. They also saw opportunities for MI to improve coach-athlete relationships, raise coaching awareness, and boost athlete motivation and self-reflection.

Phase 1 of Study 2 explored coaches' experiences with MI training and its impact on their coaching practices. Interviews were conducted with five of the nine coaches who participated exclusively in the training days. Several key themes emerged regarding their experience of the MI training. Coaches perceived that the MI training addressed gaps in their coaching practices, providing them with new practical skills that they felt were not strongly emphasised in previous coach development programs.. They also noted that the training enhanced their self-awareness, prompting them to reflect on their coaching goals and values. However, they also acknowledged the difficulties in applying the theoretical concepts and integrating new skills into their long-established routines. Coaches expressed a need for ongoing support and further training to master the practical application of MI, with the suggestion of a learning community and continued coaching to support their learning. They also felt sport-specific examples were needed to better facilitate learning into the sport environment.

Phase 2 of Study 2 examined MI implementation by two coaches, with ongoing feedback over 14 weeks delivered via the learning community and individual phone calls. Coach A recorded sessions pre-training (n = 3) and post-training (n = 6), while Coach B recorded only post-training (n = 5). The learning community was generally perceived as a positive experience, with coaches noting that individualised feedback helped them deepen their MI skills. They also described growth in their reflective practice, particularly through the process of re-listening to past coaching conversations—something they had not done before. In Phase 2 of Study 2, one athlete per coach was interviewed, both reporting increased autonomy and empowerment during their involvement in the conversations. Quantitative assessments of the audio recordings using the MITI4.2.1 and CLEAR scales indicated some improvements in MI skill, particularly in cultivating change talk and using reflections. However, these gains were not consistent across all coaches, and variability remained. Athletes speaking time relative to coach speaking talking also increased.

In summary, this research highlights the potential benefits of applying MI in sports coaching, in supporting the coach-athlete relationships, increasing coach self-awareness, and growing athlete motivation. However, challenges for integrating MI within the sport context were also identified, such as the need for ongoing support to learn and implement MI, the need for more sport-specific training examples, and the challenge of integrating it within a outcome focused culture. Nonetheless, his study was the first to analyse real-world coaching conversations while incorporating athletes’ perspectives, providing preliminary support for the integration of MI in sport coaching. However, the small sample size and limited baseline data restrict the findings, highlighting the need for larger, longitudinal studies across diverse sporting contexts.