Sport for Development and Peace: a public sociology perspective

Abstract

In the increasing amount of published research and critical commentary on sport for development and Peace (sdp) two related trends are apparent. The first is a clear belief that, under certain circumstances, sport may make a useful contribution to work in international development and peace building; the second is that criticisms of it are frequently constructive, intended to support the work of practitioners in the field by outlining the limitations of what may be achieved through sport, and under what circumstances. Given these trends, public sociology provides a useful framing device for research and commentary and academics should now engage more directly with practitioners and provide more accessible summaries of their research to those engaged in sdp. We provide a brief introduction to public sociology, and outline its relevance in the sociology of sport, before making suggestions about the incorporation of public sociology into sdp research. Three main overlapping areas of research emerge from a public sociology perspective, and are needed in order to engage in a constructively critical analysis of sdp: descriptive research and evaluation; analyses of claims making; and critical analyses of social reproduction. The paper concludes with a brief examination of the dilemmas that may be encountered by those engaging in public sociology research, in both the academy and the field.

Notes

1 I McDonald, ‘Critical social research and political intervention: moralistic versus radical approaches’, in J Sugden & A Tomlinson (eds), Power Games: A Critical Sociology of Sport, London: Routledge, 2002, pp 100–116.

2 Burawoy, American Sociological Association President-elect Candidate, Personal statement, Footnotes, March 2002, at www.asanet.org/footnotes/mar02/fn11.html. See also M Burawoy, ‘For public sociology’, American Sociological Review, 70(1), 2005, pp 4–28.

3 CW Mills, ‘The Sociological Imagination’, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959; and A Ingham & P Donnelly, ‘Whose knowledge counts? The production of knowledge and issues of application in the sociology of sport’, Sociology of Sport Journal, 7(1), 1990, pp 58–65.

4 For example, J Turner, ‘Is pubic sociology such a good idea?’, American Sociologist, 36 (3–4), 2005, pp 27–45; and M Deflem, ‘Letter to the Editor: the proper role of sociology in the world at large’, Chronicle Review, 1 October 2004.

5 Ingham & Donnelly, ‘Whose knowledge counts?’.

6 N Elias, ‘Problems of involvement and detachment’, British Journal of Sociology, 7(3), 1956, pp 226–252.

7 P Donnelly & Atkinson, ‘Where history meets biography: toward a public sociology of sport’, unpublished chapter, under review; and M Atkinson & P Donnelly, ‘Sport, social intervention, and public sociology’, paper presented at the Chicago Seminar on Sport and Culture, Chicago, IL, 19 March 2010. There is growing interest in physical cultural studies—a recognition that the work of sociologists of sport reaches far beyond sociology and includes far more than sport. See, for example, Ingham & Donnelly, ‘Whose knowledge counts?’; and Ingham & Donnelly, ‘A sociology of North American sociology of sport: disunity in unity, 1965–1996, Sociology of Sport Journal, 14(4), 1997, pp 362–418. The work developed by David Andrews, in D Andrews & M Silk (eds), Physical Cultural Studies: An Anthology, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2010, also involves a recognition that more interventionist work is necessary.

8 P David, Human Rights in Youth Sport, London: Routledge, 2005.

9 U Phüse & M Gerber, International Comparison of Physical Education: Concepts, Problems, Prospects, Oxford: Meyer & Meyer Sports, 2005.

10 B Kidd & P Donnelly (eds), The Benefits of Sport in International Development: Five Literature Reviews, Geneva: International Working Group for Sport, Development and Peace’, 2007, at http://iwg.sportanddev.org/data/htmleditor/file/SDP%20IWG/literature%20review%20SDP.pdf.

11 S Murphy, Sport Psychology Interventions, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.

12 B Houlihan & A White, The Politics of Development through Sport, London: Routledge, 2001.

13 F Coalter, A Wider Social Role for Sport: Who's keeping Score?’, London: Routledge, 2007.

14 G May & J Phelan, ‘Shared goals: sport and business in partnerships for development’, Prince of Wales International Business Leader's Forum, 2005, pp 1–16.

15 B Kidd, ‘A new social movement: sport for development and peace’, Sport in Society, 11(4), 2008, pp 370–380.

16 P Donnelly, ‘Democratization revisited: seven theses on the democratization of sport and active leisure’, Loisir et Société/Society and Leisure, 16(2), 1993, pp 413–434.

17 Research conferences, undergraduate and graduate university courses, and increasing amounts of research on sdp are all an indication that this is a growing area of study. Recent publications include R Levermore & A Beacom (eds), Sport and International Development, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; F Coalter, ‘The politics of sport-for-development: limited focus programmes and broad gauge problems?’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45(3), 2010, pp 295–314; and J Sugden, Critical left-realism and sport interventions in divided societies, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45(3), 2010, pp 258–272.

18 See the International Platform on Sport and Development, at www.sportanddev.org/en/connect/organisations/organisations_list/.

19 Mama Cash, Unstoppable: Annual Report, 2009, at www.mamacash.org, accessed 15 September 2010.

20 United Nations, Sport for Development and Peace: Towards Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, 2003, at http://www.un.org/themes/sport/reportE.pdf, accessed 20 March 2010; and C Szto, ‘Sport and the Millennium Development Goals: how does sport measure up?’, unpublished paper, University of Toronto.

21 L Hayhurst, ‘The power to shape policy: charting sport for development and peace policy discourses’, International Journal of Sport Policy, 1(2), 2008, p 221.

22 F Coalter, Sport in Development: A Monitoring and Evaluation Manual, UK Sport, 2006, at http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/File/News/monitoring_and_evaluation_140906.pdf; and R Levermore, ‘Sport: A new engine of development’, Progress in Development Studies, 8(2), 2008, pp 183–190.

23 Levermore, ‘Sport’, p 189.

24 N Bulamile, Evaluation Report on ‘Education through Sports' Project in Mtwara—Tanzania’, 2008, at http://www.liike.fi/pics/1256891114.pdf, accessed 20 March 2010.

25 It is entirely possible that the positive interview responses were a result of increased school attendance, but it is also plausible that the positive responses were an expression of cultural politeness, to make the providers of the sport intervention feel better, or it could have been motivated by an awareness that negative responses regarding the effect of the sport intervention on increasing school attendance would result in it being withdrawn. See, for example, the scenario outlined in the section above on ‘Critical analyses of social reproduction’.

26 For example, Kidd & Donnelly, The Benefits of Sport in International Development.

27 Hayhurst, ‘The power to shape policy’, p 221.

28 United Nations, Sport for Development and Peace.

29 Coalter, A Wider Social Role for Sport.

30 Ibid. AV Banerjee, Making Aid Work, Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 2007 argues for the use of randomised trials, not in the form of the field experiment outlined in the previous section, but rather along the lines of drug trials. He suggests that there is evidence that current levels of development assistance could focus entirely on programmes with proven records of success (as shown in the experimental trials). Banerjee does not argue that there are ‘general laws’ of development (one size fits all); suggesting instead that analysts must get closer to local circumstances; have more respect for the ideas and sensibilities of particular people in particular places; and have a willingness to work ‘on the ground’, to try things out, and to see what works.

31 S Boyle, ‘Development and preliminary testing of a sustainability rubric for development through sport organizations’, paper presented at the International Congress on Sport Sciences for Students, Semmelweis University, Budapest, 9–10 April 2010.

32 Ibid.

33 Kidd, ‘A new social movement’.

34 Boyle, ‘Development and preliminary testing of a sustainability rubric for development through sport organizations’. Sport sans Frontières (ssf— www.sportsansfrontieres.org) was not in the tested sample but, as an sdp organisation, it appears to maintain all the best traditions of Médecins sans Frontières in terms of sustainability, particularly with regard to having a clear exit strategy (at least according to the way that ssf represents itself on its website).

35 Ibid.

36 M Brady, ‘Creating safe spaces and building social assets for young women in the developing world: a new role for sports’, Women's Studies Quarterly, 33(1–2), 2005, pp 35–49.

37 The Sport Participation Research Initiative, through which Sport Canada indirectly (through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) funds ‘gold standard’ research on sports participation, deals specifically with this issue by creating opportunities for dialogue between researchers and practitioners and policy makers. Real efforts are made to understand the others' working conditions and job constraints.

38 A Bairner, ‘Sport, intellectuals and public sociology: obstacles and opportunities’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 44, 2009, pp 115–129.