The impact of COVID-19 on dual career athletes: Three typologies of coping.

This research aimed to understand the coping and wellbeing of dual-career athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 159 dual-career athletes completed a series of questionnaires that aimed to identify the coping strategies and their impact on the wellbeing of respondents during COVID-19 restrictions. The survey included measures of coping, wellbeing, burnout, and identity along with open-ended questions with the focus of change, coping, and support. Findings identified three coping approaches that have been employed by dual-career athletes: positive coping, negative coping, and acceptance. The three coping approaches also showed distinct wellbeing and burnout profiles. The negative coping group showed high indicators of burnout and poor wellbeing, whereas the acceptance group showed the highest scores on wellbeing and low indications of burnout. Based on the findings, it is recommended that dual-career support providers and stakeholders consider how best to support athletes that have not coped well and have experienced wellbeing issues during this time. It is also important to recognise the benefit a dual-career has provided to some individuals during this period.

Typologies of dual career in sport: A cluster analysis of identity and self-efficacy.

Research has previously identified different approaches to a dual career (i.e., the simultaneous development of a vocational career alongside the athletic career): (a) educational/vocational pathway (i.e., a prioritisation of the vocational career), (b) a parallel dual career pathway (i.e., an equal focus on athletic and vocational career), and (c) a sporting pathway (i.e., a prioritisation of the athletic career). Yet, the identity and self-efficacy characteristics of these profiles require further investigation. To address this, the current study collected survey responses from 111 dual career athletes. The survey measured aspects of career identity, athletic identity and self-efficacy and results were analysed via a cluster analysis. The results showed three athlete profiles: (a) student-athletes showing an education or vocation prioritisation; (b) dual career athletes showing an equal balance between vocational career and sporting career; and (c) athlete students indicating a sport prioritisation. The results extend the current literature that understands dual career athletes as a heterogeneous group and establishes identity and self-efficacy as important factors in dual career pathways. This understanding also enables practitioners to take an individualistic approach to supporting dual career athletes.