Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41867963›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Body, boundary, power: the impact of gender identity on professional relationships and working conditions in coaching.

Nedim Malkoç, Hakan Sunay, Ümran Sarıkan, Ömer Ünal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nedim MalkoçDepartment of Exercise and Sports Sciences, Hamidiye Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Hakan SunayDepartment of Sports Management, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Türkiye.
Ümran SarıkanDepartment of Sports Management, Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Türkiye.
Ömer ÜnalDepartment of Sports Management, Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The coaching profession plays a critical role in athlete development and building an egalitarian culture in sports. However, professional practice is often shaped by gender-based stereotypes, prejudices, and structural limitations. This study aims to examine the multilayered and systemic nature of gender inequality in the coaching profession. Methods: A qualitative research approach using a phenomenological design was employed. The experiences of active male and female coaches ( Results: The analysis identified three main themes constraining coaches' professional lives: Invisible Labor, Glass Ceiling & Glass Cliff, and Sexual Objectification. Findings revealed that female coaches struggle with a "Glass Ceiling" where their competencies are questioned, career paths are restricted, and they bear emotional burdens imposed by gender norms. Conversely, male coaches are compelled to establish excessive distance and formality, particularly with female members, to avoid being perceived as potential objects of sexual threat. This creates a "Communication Barrier" that limits their professional effectiveness and market volume. Conclusions: Gender inequality in coaching possesses a dual structure, encompassing not only the disadvantaged position of women but also structural challenges for male coaches exposed to restrictive hegemonic masculinity norms. To achieve genuine and inclusive equality in sports, policies must be broadened to address the specific constraints faced by both genders.

Indexed as

coachinggender equalitygender rolesglass ceilinginvisible labor

Identifiers

PMID41867963
PMCPMC12999850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.