ABSTRACT
This research focuses on the differences between the programmes, Team Academy (TA) tools and the methods used, with the main emphasis on Team coaching practices (especially in the context of training sessions) in the UK. The project adopts an interpretivist philosophy, and both an inductive and deductive approach. A qualitative method was employed, through a multiple-embedded case study. For this purpose, programme leaders (PL) and team coaches (TC) were interviewed and observations of the TC were conducted during their training session (TS) in 2018. Module handbooks were used as document analysis as part of the triangulation of the research. The research is cross-sectional in regard to its time horizon. Many similarities were found across the three hubs (TAH1, TAH2 and TAH3) with the differences being in the detail, in particular the terminology used for the TA tools and how these were applied within the structure of the programme. The most notable differences were found in TC support structure through the use of supervision, attention given to TS planning and the attention to contracting between the TC and their respective team companies. In terms of implications for the future, to concentrate on generating a formal structure of training and supervision and to formalize this for the TC development would be an appropriate place to start. Further research in this topic area would help develop an applicable framework. In regard to the practical implications and value of this research, individual coaches could dedicate more time and space (if at all possible, within the limitations of the resources available) to work in supervision and use this as a reflective space that could benefit their individual practice and further contribute towards the knowledge of this contextual adaptation of team coaching
