Abstract
Sport’s historic attraction for policy makers has been its claims that it can offer an economy of remedies to seemingly intractable social problems—“social inclusion”, “development”. Such usually vague and ill-defined claims reflect sport’s marginal policy status and its attempts to prove its more general relevance. The dominance of evangelical beliefs and interest groups, who tend to view research in terms of affirmation of their beliefs, is restricting conceptual and methodological development of policy and practice. There is a need to de-reify “sport” and to address the issue of <em>sufficient conditions</em>—the mechanisms, processes and experiences which might<em> </em>produce positive impacts for some participants. This requires researchers and practitioners to develop approaches based on robust and systematic programme theories. However, even if systematic and robust evidence is produced for the relative effectiveness of certain types of programme, we are left with the problem of<strong> </strong><em>displacement of scope</em>—the process of wrongly generalising<strong> </strong>micro level (programme) effects to the macro (social). Although programme rhetoric frequently claims to address <em>social</em> issues most programmes have an inevitably individualist perspective. Further, as participation in sport is closely related to socially structured inequalities, it might be that rather than sport contributing to “social inclusion”, various aspects of social inclusion may <em>precede</em> such participation. In this regard academics and researchers need to adopt a degree of scepticism and to reflect critically on what we and, most especially, others might already know. There is a need to theorise sport-for-change’s limitations as well as its “potential”.
Highlights
Sport’s historic attraction for policy makers has been its claims that it can offer an economy of remedies to seemingly intractable social problems—“social inclusion”, “development”
Despite claims that sport-for-development or sport-forchange is “new”, the historic rationale for investment in sport has consistently been based on supposed externalities—sport’s presumed ability to teach “lessons for life”, to contribute to “character building” (President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, 2006) and its supposed ability to contribute to the reduction of a variety of social problems
Sport’s attraction for policy makers has been a perception that it can offer an economy of remedies to seemingly intractable social problems
Summary
Despite claims that sport-for-development or sport-forchange is “new”, the historic rationale for investment in sport has consistently been based on supposed externalities—sport’s presumed ability to teach “lessons for life”, to contribute to “character building” (President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, 2006) and its supposed ability to contribute to the reduction of a variety of social problems. Houlihan and White (2002) contend that sport tends to be opportunistic and reactive—a policy taker and not a policy maker In such circumstances “holders of diverse values and different interests have to be won over, and in the process a host of inflated and unrealistic goal commitments are made” Like the concept of social inclusion, the MDGs shifted the focus of investment from economic capital to social capital, with a focus on personal and “social inclusion” issues— strengthening education, improving community safety and social cohesion, helping girls and women and youth at risk and addressing issues of public health (including HIV and AIDS) (Kidd, 2008) Such peoplecentred objectives resonated with many of sport’s traditional claims about contributing to personal and social development. Coakley (2011, p. 307) argues much of the rhetoric of sports evangelists can be viewed as “unquestioned beliefs grounded in wishful thinking”. Hartmann and Kwauk (2011, pp. 285-286) refer to “anecdotal evidence, beliefs about the impact of sport in sound bites of individual and community transformation, packaged and delivered more often than not by those running the programs”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
