A mixed methods approach to compare elite sport policies of nations. A critical reflection on the use of composite indicators in the SPLISS study

Abstract

This paper discusses the utility of mixed methods research in international comparative studies on elite sport policies and (quantitative) composite indicators (CIs) in particular. It illustrates how complex and large amounts of data in 15 nations have been objectified into easily understood formats, CIs. Using a nine Pillar model, data were collected through a research inventory and surveys completed by 3142 elite athletes, 1376 coaches and 241 performance directors. Ninety-six critical success factors and 750 sub-factors were aggregated into a CI. The paper shows how CIs are helpful in identifying a possible (non) relationship between elite sport policies and success, in facilitating interpretation and comparison, and in understanding differences and convergences in elite sport systems. However, there are a number of drawbacks, for example, understanding elite sport policies as part of a broader social, cultural and political context. Complementary qualitative analysis is necessary and has been used to interpret elite sport policies of nations.

Acknowledgement

SPLISS has largely depended on institutional investments to ensure the national coordination of this large-scale project. The SPLISS consortium partners did not seek any financial contribution from the participating nations as a return for the massive coordinating work. All such costs were met by the Vrije Universiteit Brussels and supported by the consortium members and engaged researchers from the partner countries. The author would like to thank the policy institutions that funded the national data collection (see De Bosscher et al. 2015, 24–29 for an overview)

The authors would like to thank the dedicated researchers partners involved in the SPLISS-2.0 study, among others (sorted by country): Hans Westerbeek and Camilla Brockett (Australia, Victoria University); Stephanie De Croock and Jasper Truyens (Belgium (Fla), Vrije Universiteit Brussel) Mathieu Winand (Stirling University) and Thierry Zintz (Belgium (Wal), Université catholique de Louvain); Maria Tereza Silveira Bohme & team (Brazil, University of São Paulo); David Legg & team (Canada, Mount Royal University); Henrik Brandt, Rasmus K. Storm, Lau Tofft and Nynne Mortensen (Denmark, Danish Institute for Sports Studies & University of Southern Denmark); Eerik Hanni (Estonia, National Audit Office of Estonia); Patrick Mignon and Emanuel Lelore (France, Institut National du Sport et de l’Éducation Physique – INSEP); Jari Lämsä, Jarmo Mäkinen and Mikko Kärmeniemi (Finland, KIHU – Research institute for Olympic Sports); Yoshiyuki Mano, Hiroaki Funahashi and team (Japan, Waseda University); Maarten van Bottenburg and Bake Dijk (the Netherlands, Utrecht University); Simon Shibli (Sheffield Hallam University) and Paul Donnelly (Sport Northern Ireland, UK); Pedro Guedes De Carvalho and Rui Canelas (Portugal, Beira Interior University); Anna Vilanova, Eduard Inglés and team (Spain, National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia, INEFC); Eunha Koh (South Korea, Korea Institute of Sport Science); and Hippolyt Kempf, Marco Stopper & Andreas, Christophe Weber (Switzerland, Swiss Federal Institute of Sport Magglingen SFISM).

Notes

1. Flanders is the northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium (6.3 million inhabitants), Wallonia the southern, French- and German-speaking part (4.0 million inhabitants). In Belgium, the Flemish community (Flanders) and the French-/German-speaking community (Wallonia) have separate sport policies at each level, from local to national (including three separate ministers of sport). Apart from the Olympic Committee (BOIC), whose main task is to select athletes for the Olympic Games, there is no national (federal) policy or structure for sport, nor are there expenditures on sport at federal level. Therefore, Flanders and Wallonia are seen in this research as if it is two distinct nations. It was an established fact that policy analysis for Belgium as a nation could not be determined by summing both regions.

For Northern Ireland, UK Sport is the coordinating authority for elite sport, where DCAL (government department for culture, media and sport) in Northern Ireland sets the policy direction and Sport NI puts this into practice. Some sports are supported at the UK level, others are supported at the home nation level of Northern Ireland.

2. An elite athlete was defined as (1) an (able bodied) athlete who, whether as an individual, or as part of a team, is ranked in the world top 16 for his or her discipline, or in the top 12 of any equivalent continental ranking system. OR (2), an athlete who receives direct or indirect funding and/or other services via a support programme funded and/or organized on a national (or regional) basis for the purpose of achieving success at least one of the following levels: the Olympic Games; the senior World Championships; and the senior Continental Championships in his or her sport (European, Asian, Pan American, etc.).

3. Market share is a standardized measure of total achievement in an event, whereby total medals won are converted into ‘points’ (gold = 3, silver = 2 and bronze = 1) and the points won by a given nation are subsequently expressed as a percentage of the total points awarded (Shibli 2003).