www.socialsciences-journal.com

The InternationalJOURNALof

INTERDISCIPLINARYSOCIAL SCIENCES

Volume 3, Number 4

The Relationship between Perceived CoachingBehaviours and Team Cohesion among

Malaysian National Junior Athletes

Aminuddin Yusof, Muraleedharan Vasuthevan and Parilah M. Shah

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com First published in 2008 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2008 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2008 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. ISSN: 1833-1882 Publisher Site: http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES is a peer refereed journal. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by Associate Editors through anonymous referee processes. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.

The Relationship between Perceived Coaching Behaviours andTeam Cohesion among Malaysian National Junior AthletesAminuddin Yusof, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, MALAYSIAMuraleedharan Vasuthevan, Bukit Jalil Sports School, MALAYSIAParilah M. Shah, National University of Malaysia, Selangor, MALAYSIA

Abstract: Based on Carron’s (1982) model of cohesion, this study examined the relationship between perceived coachingbehaviours and group cohesion in interacting sports teams among national junior athletes in Malaysia. The subjects, whichwere comprised of 150 athletes, were asked to respond to survey questions based on the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS)and the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ). The results suggest a significant relationship between coaching behavioursand team cohesion. Coaches who were perceived as engaging in democratic behaviours, higher levels of training and in-struction, social support and positive feedback, tend to have athletes with higher levels of task and social cohesion withintheir teams.

Keywords: Coaching Behaviours, Team Cohesion, Social Cohesion

Introduction

ATHLETES, COACHES AND sport psy-chologists seem to have an enduring fascin-ation for the relationship between groupcohesion and leader behaviour. Studying

the relationship between leadership behaviour andgroup cohesion is significant because group cohesionis an important influence on group performance.Specifically, numerous analysis of team performanceby athletes, coaches, news media and sport psycho-logists mention that group cohesion is in some waya cause or by product of team performance (Carron,1988) and it is also one of the most examined smallgroup variables in sport dynamics. There are anumber of excellent reviews that discuss cohesionin the context of sport groups, for example, Friedkin(2004), Gill (1986) and Widmeyer, Carron andBrawley (1993). Players and coaches often attributea team’s success or failure to how well the memberswork together as a cohesive unit. When a less talen-ted team upsets a highly favoured team, the coachmay say, “We just didn’t play well as a team.Everyone seemed concerned about his own individu-al statistics instead of doing what was needed to winthe game.”

In the literature, several definitions of group cohe-sion were proposed, their common thread being thatcohesion is comprised of basic task and social dimen-sions (Carron, 1988; Gill, 1986; Widmeyer, Carronand Brawley, 1993; Carron, Bray and Eys, 2002).Task cohesion reflects the degree to which membersof a group work together to achieve common goals.In sport, a common goal would be winning champi-

onship, which in part depends on the team’s coordin-ated effort or teamwork. Social cohesion on the otherhand, reflects the degree to which members of a teamlike each other and enjoy each other’s company.Social cohesion is often equated with interpersonalattraction. In an exercise class for example, a com-mon goal would be enhanced fitness, and it has beenshown that adherence to an exercise program in-creases as the social cohesion of the group increases(Spink and Carron, 1992).

Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of SportLeadership, in combination with the Leadership Scalefor Sports (Cheladurai and Saleh, 1978), has resultedin a theoretical and psychometric foundation forstudying the effects of coaching on team perform-ance. Cohesion is an important factor in sport teamperformance and many coaches devote considerabletime and effort in trying to enhance cohesion in theirteams. Results from research (i.e., Gardner, Shields,Bredmeier and Bostrom, 1996; Westre and Weiss,1991) indicate that team cohesion is positive, andtherefore something to be encouraged. According toYusof (2002), the personality and leadership beha-viours of a coach can have an important effect uponathletes’ performance and satisfaction. If this is thecase, leadership style and behaviours of coaches arepotentially vital factors that affect the degree of teamcohesiveness. Leadership is perhaps the most import-ant link because the coach may be in the best positionto influence change. However, despite the numberof independent studies on coaching behaviours andteam cohesion, very little empirical research has ad-dressed the relationship between coaches’ leadershipbehaviours and team cohesion. Westre and Weiss

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES,VOLUME 3, NUMBER 4, 2008

http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1882© Common Ground, Aminuddin Yusof, Muraleedharan Vasuthevan, Parilah M. Shah, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:

cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

(1991) argued that according to the MultidimensionalModel of leadership, the more congruent the coach’sbehaviours to group preferences and situational de-mands, the higher the group satisfaction. This studywould like to examine if this should also hold truefor the effect of coaching behaviours on team cohe-sion.

Studying the relationship between leadership be-haviour and group cohesion is significant becausegroup cohesion is an important influence on groupperformance. Specifically, numerous analysis of teamperformance by athletes, coaches, news media andsport psychologists mention that group cohesion isin some way a cause or by product of team perform-ance (Carron, 1988) and it is also one of the mostexamined small group variables in sport dynamics.Since cohesion is an important factor in sport teamperformance, many coaches devote considerable timeand effort in trying to enhance cohesion in theirteams. Results from research (i.e., Gardner, Shields,Bredmeier and Bostrom, 1996; Westre and Weiss,1991) indicated that team cohesion is positive, andtherefore something to be encouraged.

This study builds upon previous research in severalways. First, the difficulties that Westre and Weiss(1991) had in achieving acceptable reliability fortheir social cohesion scales may be due to their useof high school athletes. Gardner et al. (1996) notedthat the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)was designed for use with university-level athletes.Thus previous studies only utilized university ath-letes. This study would like to investigate if similarresults could be achieved using high school athletes(aged between 16 and 17 years old). Second, Gardneret. al (1996) used the sports of baseball and softballin their study despite the fact that Fox (1984) hadearlier questioned whether softball should in fact beconsidered an interacting team sport. Although soft-ball and baseball players act interdependently whenfielding, particularly the pitcher and catcher, theplayers act independently when batting. Therefore,in this study, only athletes from the fully interactivesports of soccer, rugby and field hockey were usedas subjects.

The purpose of the study was to address the fol-lowing questions:

1. Is task cohesion positively related to the leaderbehaviours of training and instruction, democrat-ic behaviour, social support, positive feedbackand autocratic behaviour?

2. Is social cohesion positively related to theleader behaviours of training and instruction,democratic behaviour, social support, positivefeedback and autocratic behaviour?

MethodsData for this study were collected quantitatively us-ing survey instruments. Using convenience samplingtechnique, a total of 150 national junior athletescompeting at the international and national level werechosen for the study. The subjects consisted of 100male athletes from soccer (n=30), sepak takraw(n=20), rugby (n=20), field hockey (n=30) and 50female athletes from netball (n=25), volleyball(n=15) and basketball (n=10) teams. The groupconsisted of athletes whose age ranged from 16 to17 years and the mean age of the subjects was 16.49years. Parental consent was obtained prior to thestudy from each subject.

The subjects were asked to respond to a question-naire, which was divided into three sections. Thefirst section consists of the Leadership Scale forSports (Chelladurai and Saleh, 1978). This instru-ment was used to measure the subjects’ perceptionof five dimensions of their coach’s leadership beha-viours: training and instruction, democratic beha-viour, autocratic behaviour, social support and posit-ive feedback. In the second section of the question-naire, the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)developed by Carron (1988) was used to measurethe subjects’ perceptions of team cohesiveness. TheGEQ, which consists of 18 items, measures four as-pects of team cohesiveness : (1) Individual Attractionto Group-Task (ATG-T) which is a measure of indi-vidual team members’ feelings about their personalinvolvement with group task, (2) Individual Attrac-tion to Group-Social (ATG-S) which measures indi-vidual team members’ feelings about personal in-volvement and social interaction with the group, (3)Group Integration-Task (GI-T) is a measure of theindividual team members’ feelings about bondingand closeness within the team around the group taskand (4) Group Integration-Social (GI-S) whichmeasures the individual team members’ feelingsabout bonding and closeness within the team as asocial group. In the final section of the questionnaire,the subjects in this study were also asked to respondto question items pertaining to demographic inform-ation such as age, gender, ethnicity, gender of coach,type of sport, number of years in team and levels ofparticipation.

Results and AnalysisData were analyzed using SPSSx frequencies andcorrelation analysis. Correlational analysis (Table1) was performed to determine the relationshipbetween the scales of the LSS and task cohesion.The results showed that task cohesion was positivelyrelated to four sub-scales of LSS; training and instruc-tion, democratic behaviour, social support and posit-ive feedback, and negatively correlated with autocrat-

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOLUME 32

ic behaviour. The results suggest coaches engagingin more training and instruction, democratic beha-viour, social support and positive feedback, whileavoiding autocratic behaviour had athletes who de-

scribed higher levels of task cohesion with theirteams. Task cohesiveness reflects the feelings ofagreement and bonding between team members onthe group’s tasks, goals and objectives.

Table 1: Correlations between leader Behaviour and Task Cohesion

Task CohesionLeader Behaviour.40*Training and Instruction.44*Democratic behaviour-.42*Autocratic behaviour.44*Social support.47*Positive feedback

p< 0.01

As for the second research question, a correlationalanalysis was performed between LSS and social co-hesion. The results (Table 2 ) showed that there wasa positive relationship between social cohesion andtraining and instruction, democratic behaviour, socialsupport and positive feedback. Autocratic behaviourwas negatively related to social cohesion. The resultssuggest that coaches engaging in more training and

instruction, democratic behaviour, social support andpositive feedback, while avoiding autocratic beha-viour had athletes who described higher levels ofsocial cohesion with their teams. Social cohesivenessrefers to the team member’s feelings about the attract-iveness of the groups as a social unit and the socialinteractions within the group.

Table 2: Correlations between Leader Behaviour and Social Cohesion

Social CohesionLeader behaviour.37*Training and Instruction.41*Democratic behaviour-.29*Autocratic behaviour.39*Social support.40*Positive feedback

p< 0.01

The results of this study indicate a significant rela-tionship between coaching behaviours and team co-hesion in interacting team sports among coaches andathletes. The present findings appear consistent withthose obtained by Chu and Howe (2000) and thisseems to indicate that leadership is an importantantecedent of cohesion in Carron’s (1982) conceptualmodel. It seems reasonable to suggest that leaderbehaviours may have some influence on team cohe-sion. The results support the notion that training andinstruction is an important dimension in increasingtask cohesion by helping the team members to focuson their common shared goal. The successful imple-mentation of the coach’s training and instruction,likewise, is dependent upon the positive feedbackthe team receives. The provision of useful feedbackis possibly the most the most critical feature of goodcoaching behaviour. Unless athletes know what isexpected of them, it is difficult for them to performin an appropriate manner, and the coach is in the key

position to give the first and most important sourceof feedback. It is therefore logical to accept that therelationship between higher levels of task cohesionand more perceived positive feedback is coherentwith the task cohesion and training and instructionrelationship. The coach can help facilitate the feelingsof social cohesion by providing athletes with thenecessary information about skills, strategies andtactics with good communication skills to make iteasy for the athletes to understand the coach. Thecoach who practices positive feedback not only cre-ates a positive team atmosphere but also reinforcessuccessful goal producing behaviour.

A coach with democratic style allows his/her ath-letes to participate in decisions about the group’sgoals, practice methods, and game tactics andstrategies. This explains the positive relationshipbetween democratic behaviour and task cohesion asa reflection of the group participation in setting task-related goals. Involving athletes in decision making

3AMINUDDIN YUSOF, MURALEEDHARAN VASUTHEVAN, PARILAH M. SHAH

about the team’s task goals, the coach can create agreater feeling of agreement and commitment onthose task goals. A coach who encourages his athletesto make situation specific decisions may heightencommitment to team tasks because every athlete willexperience outcomes as related to not only thecoach’s decision but also their own. In terms of socialcohesion, the rapport between the coach and theathlete opens the way for close coach-athlete andathlete-athlete relationship. It encourages athletes tomake decisions in specific situations, knowing theyhave the support of their coach and colleagues. Ad-ditionally, a coach’s democratic behaviour also pro-motes task related independent thought, as well asheightening a sense of both personal growth andteam ownership, which in turn, may facilitate socialcohesion.

Social support shown by the coach can also helpto facilitate task and social cohesion. A coach, whoexhibits a high level of concern to his charges notonly as sports performers but also as humans, mayhelp foster a reciprocal sense of commitment andconcern by athletes to the coach, thus urging themto translate this commitment to achieve team goals.The coach is also responsible for the developmentof athletes outside the sports arena, including assist-ance with personal and career development. Sincesocial support is provided outside the athletic context,and communicates a high level of caring and commit-ment, it may heighten the general sense of mutualcare and concern on the team. Such a team atmo-sphere would certainly facilitate bonding around thesocial dimension. In addition, by demonstrating careand concern for the individual team members, thecoach can help to establish a feeling of closenessamong team members.

From the findings, autocratic behaviour is negat-ively correlated to both task and social cohesion.This means the athletes prefer their coaches to avoidautocratic behaviours. An autocratic coach uses inde-pendent decision making and stresses personal au-thority in working with decisions. Input from athletesis generally not invited. In sports, an autocratic coachwould tend to choose his own line-up, practiceschedule and plays with little input from the playersor assistant coaches. Autocratic behaviour has thedisadvantage of reducing players’ satisfaction, whichcould lead to lower levels of team cohesion. Coacheswho make decisions alone are not fully utilizing theskills, resources and abilities of their teams to max-imize achievements. It is therefore not surprisingthat athletes from this study prefer their coaches toavoid autocratic behaviours.

Conclusions

The significant relationship between leader behaviourand team cohesion found in the present study

provides support for Carron’s (1982) model of teamcohesion. The model takes a multidimensional ap-proach to cohesion in sport by identifying ante-cedents and consequences of team cohesion. Ante-cedents influences were described as environmental,personal, leadership and team factors. The design ofthis study focused on examining the relationshipbetween leadership and cohesion. In this study, asignificant relationship was found between leaderbehaviours and team cohesion. This finding servesto validate one of the relationship in Carron’s model– that of leader behaviour and team cohesion. It ishoped that future research will test the other ante-cedents featured in Carron’s model.

This study suggests that leadership is importantin enhancing cohesion by involving team membersin decision making, team goals and team structure.This develops a sense of ownership for each player.By contrast, an autocratic style of coaching leads tothe athletes feeling negative, resulting in a lack ofinvolvement, little sense of belonging, and a senseof isolation. A coach should encourage a shared re-sponsibility for performance outcomes amongst allthe athletes in the team. The extent of similarity ofattitudes, aspirations, commitment and ability alsoinfluences team cohesion. When these are shared,team cohesion is likely to be enhanced, and a positiverelationship can be formed which might help theteam’s overall performance.

Carron (1982) stated that cohesion is a dynamicconstruct. It is assumed that cohesion continuallydevelops as the group moves through progressivedevelopmental stages. Tuckman (1965) referred tothese stages as forming, storming, norming and per-forming. Orientation problems predominate in theforming stages as members become familiar witheach other and the nature of group task. The stormingstage which follows is characterized by polarization,conflict and rebellion. In the norming stage, thegroup is enhanced. Finally, the group directs its en-ergy toward its goals and objectives in the perform-ing stage. Sport teams are a special type of group,consequently are open to frequent change, growthand improvement. The coach who wishes to exertcontrol over this group and produce positive improve-ments needs to be aware of the principals of teamdynamics such as cohesion and team process if teameffectiveness and performance are to be maximized.

Recommendations

Success shared by the team is important in develop-ing team cohesion and can bring a team together.When success comes to teams performing under acoach, there evolves mutual respect, admiration andaffection between them. Slogan such as “Playersplay………….team win’ can be found in changingrooms everywhere. Such expressions reflect the be-

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOLUME 34

lief of coaches that developing team cohesion is animportant aspect of any team. Indeed a coach canpromote team closeness in many ways such as:

1. Set clear individual goalsClearly outline expectations and roles to eachteam member, no matter how big or small. Al-ways give the athlete the opportunity to contrib-ute. When players understand what is requiredof their teamates, they begin to develop supportand empathy among themselves. Goals need tobe specific, measurable, challenging but realisticto the team.

2. Increase athlete motivationTo promote motivation and team loyalty, informathletes of their status on the team before theseason starts. If each athlete feels that they havean important and significant role in the team, itprovides adequate levels of motivation withinthe group.

3. Pre-season preparation is importantAvoid an excessively difficult schedule earlyin the season. Early success enhances cohesion;lack of success reduces cohesion. Thereforeavoid a difficult pre-season schedule andprovide opportunity for success in pre-seasoncompetition.

4. Give positive reinforcementSupporting athletes instead of being negativeand critical will build trust and support. Avoiddestructive feedback at any stage. Instead en-courage the athletes to be sensitive, positive andconstructive when a group member is undergo-ing adversity. Athletes are especially responsiveto recognition of their special contributions. Agreat activity to enhance positive reinforcementand cohesion in the team is to encourage teammember to write feel-good note to anothermember, with positive comments on their in-volvement in the team.

5. Adopt open communication.

Be in touch with your athletes, both on and offthe playing arena. Encourage open communica-tion at all times and at all levels within the team.Intra-group communication will enhancegreater levels of cohesion.

6. Identify coalitions and cliques.Avoid the development of social cliques by al-ternating roommates, training partners andtravel partners to encourage socialization withinthe team. Formation of small groups within alarger tam may have a bad influence.

7. Give the young identityTeam jackets, training t-shirts or uniforms areall evidence of group identity. Encourage pridein the performance of each section of the groupbut continually stress the importance of viewingthe total team as a whole.

8. Encourage leadership.Coaches often assume that they are the onlyteam leader. Athletes respond favourably toleaders. Perhaps leaders or captains can leadparticular discussions with the team about de-veloping or maintaining team cohesion. Askthem for ideas, suggestions, and delegate re-sponsibilities.

Coaching is about helping athletes to achieve theirpotential – it demands a sensitive, caring approachby a knowledgeable practitioner, a recognition thatevery individual is different and that these differencesmatter (at least to the athletes). Accordingly, thecoach must be a skilful organizer and an effectivemanager of athletes with the ability to communicate,enthuse and motivate. The ‘stick togetherness’ ofteams is crucial to team success. Coaches are continu-ally challenged to find new initiatives that will helpthe performance of the individual and the team. De-veloping team cohesion is an important strategy inimproving team’s performance. It can provide per-sonal and team benefits for both athletes and coach.

ReferencesCarron, A.V. (1988). Group cohesion and individual adherence to physical activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,

10, 127-138.Chelladurai, P., and Saleh, S.(1978). Dimensions of leader behaviours in sport : Development of a leadership scale. Journal

of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.Chu, M. and Howe, B. (2000). Leadership and cohesion in varsity sport teams. In http://www.educ.uvic.ca/connections/Chu

and Howe.htm .Fox, K.R. (1984). Causal relationship among cohesion, satisfaction and performance relationship. Journal of Sport Psychology,

4, 324-337.Friedkin, N.E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, p. 409.Gardner, D.E., Shields, D.I., Bredmeier, B.J., and Bostrom, A.(1996). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviours

and team cohesion among baseball and softball players. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 367-381.Gill, D.L. (1986). Psychological dynamics of sport. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics.Tuckman (1965). Developmental sequemce in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.Westre, K. and Weiss, M. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviours and group cohesion in high

school football teams. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 41-54.

5AMINUDDIN YUSOF, MURALEEDHARAN VASUTHEVAN, PARILAH M. SHAH

Widemeyer, W.N., Carron, A.V.and Brawley, L.R.(1993). Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In R. Singer, M.Murphyand L. Tennant (Eds.). Handbook of research on sport psychology. New York : MacMillan.

Yusof, A. (2002). The practice of transformational leadership among Malaysian high school coaches and its impact onathletes’ satisfaction. Journal of the International Council for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport andDance, 38 (1), 27-30.

About the AuthorsDr. Aminuddin YusofDr. Aminuddin Yusof is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia.In 2004, he was appointed as the director of the university’s Sports Academy. Dr. Aminuddin Yusof receivedhis tertiary education in the United States; his B.A. from Wilmington College, his M.A. from University ofIllinois at Urbana Champaign, and his Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut. Dr. Aminuddin has been activelyinvolved in research and professional services in the areas of Sports Management, Sports Industry and SportsTourism. In addition to his publications in national and international sports science and physical educationjournals and others, he has made invited and keynote presentations at various professional meetings such as theMalaysian Association for Physical Education, Sports Science and Fitness (PPJSKM) and International Councilfor Health Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (ICHPER) conferences. He is actively involved in profes-sional activities with Persatuan Pendidikan Jasmani, Sains Sukan, Kesihatan dan Kecergasan Malaysia (PPJSKM)as Journal Editor (2003-2004), Program Chair of Research Bureau (2002-2003) and Program Chair for Academicand Professional Education Bureau (1999-2001). His professional services include, but are not limited to, as aprogram evaluator for the National Accreditation Board (LAN), a member for National Committee on SportsScience Guidelines, and as External Examiner, Sports Science Graduate & Undergraduate Programs for severalMalaysian universities.

Muraleedharan VasuthevanBukit Jalil Sports School, MALAYSIA

Dr. Parilah M. ShahDr. Parilah M. Shah is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Education, National University of Malaysia. She obtainedher M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut, USA. Her research interests are second language ac-quisition, teaching of English to speakers of other languages, teaching of English for specific purposes (ESP),reading in English as a second language (ESL), and bilingual-bicultural education. She has presented severalpapers at both the national and international levels and has several publications in areas related to second languageacquisition and learning.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOLUME 36

EDITORS Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Patrick Baert, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK. Norma Burgess, Syracuse University, Syracuse NY, USA. Vangelis Intzidis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. José Luis Ortega Martín, Universidad de Granada, Spain. Francisco Fernandez Palomares, Universidad de Granada, Spain. Miguel A. Pereyra, Universidad de Granada, Spain. Constantine D. Skordoulis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Chryssi Vitsilakis-Soroniatis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

International Journal of the Arts in Society Creates a space for dialogue on innovative theories and practices in the arts, and their inter-relationships with society.

ISSN: 1833-1866 http://www.Arts-Journal.com

International Journal of the Book Explores the past, present and future of books, publishing, libraries, information, literacy and learning in the information

society. ISSN: 1447-9567 http://www.Book-Journal.com

Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal Examines the meaning and purpose of ‘design’ while also speaking in grounded ways about the task of design and the

use of designed artefacts and processes. ISSN: 1833-1874 http://www.Design-Journal.com

International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations Provides a forum for discussion and builds a body of knowledge on the forms and dynamics of difference and diversity.

ISSN: 1447-9583 http://www.Diversity-Journal.com

International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability Draws from the various fields and perspectives through which we can address fundamental questions of sustainability.

ISSN: 1832-2077 http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com

Global Studies Journal Maps and interprets new trends and patterns in globalization. ISSN 1835-4432

http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

International Journal of the Humanities Discusses the role of the humanities in contemplating the future and the human, in an era otherwise dominated by

scientific, technical and economic rationalisms. ISSN: 1447-9559 http://www.Humanities-Journal.com

International Journal of the Inclusive Museum Addresses the key question: How can the institution of the museum become more inclusive? ISSN 1835-2014

http://www.Museum-Journal.com

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Discusses disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge creation within and across the various social

sciences and between the social, natural and applied sciences. ISSN: 1833-1882

http://www.Socialsciences-Journal.com

International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management Creates a space for discussion of the nature and future of organisations, in all their forms and manifestations.

ISSN: 1447-9575 http://www.Management-Journal.com

International Journal of Learning Sets out to foster inquiry, invite dialogue and build a body of knowledge on the nature and future of learning.

ISSN: 1447-9540 http://www.Learning-Journal.com

International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society Focuses on a range of critically important themes in the various fields that address the complex and subtle relationships

between technology, knowledge and society. ISSN: 1832-3669 http://www.Technology-Journal.com

Journal of the World Universities Forum Explores the meaning and purpose of the academy in times of striking social transformation.

ISSN 1835-2030 http://www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT subscriptions@commonground.com.au