Olympic Education Policy in Practice: Development, Delivery and Evaluation (Case Study of Tokyo 2020) Bo Ra Hwang Loughborough University, Great ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Olympic Education Policy in Practice: Development, Delivery and
Evaluation (Case Study of Tokyo 2020)
Bo Ra Hwang
Loughborough University, Great Britain
Final report for
the IOC Olympic Studies Centre
PhD Students Research Grant Programme
2017 Award
31/12/2017Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................... 4
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary .................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7
2. Nature of Olympic Education ............................................................................... 8
3. Results of Meta-narrative review ....................................................................... 11
4. Research aim and objectives ............................................................................. 20
5. Conceptualisation of governance of the Japanese Olympic system for Tokyo
2020 ......................................................................................................................... 21
6. Evaluation Approaches to Analysis.................................................................... 23
6.1. Use of Logic models.................................................................................... 23
6.2. Realist Policy Evaluation ............................................................................. 26
7. Research design and methods .......................................................................... 29
7.1. A case study approach ................................................................................ 29
7.2. Thematic analysis ....................................................................................... 30
7.3. Selection and analysis of documents .......................................................... 31
7.4. Selection and analysis of semi-structured interviews .................................. 32
8. Findings ............................................................................................................. 34
8.1. Case Study of Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic
Games................................................................................................................... 34
8.2. Case Study of Tokyo Metropolitan Government.......................................... 39
8.3. Case Study of Japan Sports Agency........................................................... 45
8.4. Case Study of Japanese Olympic Committee ............................................. 49
8.5. Case Study of the University of Tsukuba (CORE)....................................... 53
9. Conclusion...................................................................................................... 58
References ............................................................................................................... 63
Appendix
2|PageList of Tables
Table 1: Results of a meta-narrative review of the literature on Olympic education . 14
Table 2: Descriptions of the key elements of a logic model...................................... 24
Table 3: Six phases of conducting thematic analysis ............................................... 31
Table 4: List of the interviewees ............................................................................... 33
Table 5: A logic model for TOCOG’s Olympic education programme ...................... 36
Table 6: TOCOG CMO Configurations ..................................................................... 38
Table 7: A logic model for TMG’s Olympic education programme ........................... 41
Table 8: TMG CMO Configurations .......................................................................... 42
Table 9 : A logic model for JSA’s Olympic education programme ............................ 46
Table 10: JSA CMO Configurations ......................................................................... 48
Table 11: A logic model for JOC’s Olympic education programme .......................... 50
Table 12: JOC CMO Configurations ......................................................................... 52
Table 13: A logic model of CORE’s Olympic education programme ........................ 55
Table 14: CORE CMO Configurations...................................................................... 57
Table 15: Institutional membership of the policy network for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic
Education policy domain .......................................................................................... 59
List of Figures
Figure 1: Summary of phases in the meta-narrative review ..................................... 13
Figure 2: Governance of Japanese Olympic system ................................................ 21
Figure 3: A basic logic model ................................................................................... 23
Figure 4: An application of an analytic logic model for Olympic education programme
................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 5: 4 x 4 Initiatives .......................................................................................... 39
3|PageAcknowledgement
First of all, the author would like to thank the IOC PhD Grants Committee for having
made the award to fund the fieldwork for this study without which this work could not
have been undertaken.
I am also grateful to all of the people from the University of Tsukuba, who helped me
stay well and undertake this research in Japan. Special thanks to the CORE staff
members; Associate Professor Akiyo Miyazaki, Professor Hisashi Sanada, and
Assistant Professor Taro Obayashi.
I do appreciate that the interviewees, who were willing to take part in this research,
spent time for me and provided valuable and rich data.
Lastly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Ian Henry. Without his expertise,
experience, and dedication, I may not have completed this research.
4|PageAbstract
As a policy aim for the Olympic Movement, the development of Olympic education
programmes remains a key goal for the IOC as well as for host cities and nations
staging the Olympic Games. Tokyo, the capital city of Japan, is set to host the 2020
Olympic Games. This is the second time that Tokyo is to host the Summer Olympic
Games, first held in 1964. Since the announcement of the success of Tokyo’s bid for
the hosting the 2020 Olympic Games in 2014, various stakeholders have been highly
active in defining a range of Olympic sports policy and research initiatives to be
pursued as part of preparation for staging the Games. For the promotion of Olympic
education for the Tokyo 2020 Games, a number of Olympic education initiatives have
been developed and implemented across Japan by different levels of stakeholders in
the Japanese Olympic system. This report examined how Olympic education
programmes for Tokyo 2020 have been developed and delivered in a Japanese
specific context, applying realist policy analysis and concluded with the
conceptualisation of the phenomenon in terms of policy communities and the
evaluation of policy networks involved in the delivery of Olympic education policy.
Keywords
Olympic education, Olympic education programme, Tokyo 2020, Tokyo 2020 Olympic
education programme, Olympism, Olympic Movement, Olympic values, Realist policy
evaluation, Policy community, Policy network
5|PageExecutive summary
When Pierre de Coubertin introduced the modern Olympic Games, one of the ideals
for the revival of the Games was the centrality of education. Despite Coubertin’s
educational philosophy and the IOC’s intention to promote Olympism and Olympic
values through Olympic education specified in the Olympic Charter and the Olympic
Agenda 2020, there has been a lack of definitive understanding of the concept of
Olympic education as well as Olympic values being delivered through Olympic
education initiatives. Thus, explanation of Olympic education as a concept and set of
practices is relatively imprecise in the literature. Nevertheless, as a policy aim for the
Olympic Movement, the development of Olympic education programmes remains a
key goal for the IOC and thus for host cities and nations staging the Olympic Games.
To understand the nature of Olympic education, the analysis of literature on Olympic
education was undertaken through a meta-narrative approach to systematic review.
The results of the analysis indicate that there is a gap identified in work undertaken on
Olympic education which is consideration of the impact of a cultural context on the
nature of Olympic education planning and implementation. Thus, the research
benefited from a meta-narrative analysis of the literature on Olympic education which
directly informed the cross-sectional study of the Olympic education system under
development in relation to preparation for the Tokyo 2020 Games.
Considering the Japanese context, there have been a number of Olympic education
programmes designed and implemented across Japan by different levels of
stakeholders being actively involved in the promotion of Olympism and the Olympic
Movement. As Japanese Olympic education programmes are integrated within the
national curriculum in schools, Japan represents a particularly interesting context for
the study of the Olympic education phenomenon. Thus, the research aim was to
review the planning of Olympic education policy in practice in terms of development,
delivery and evaluation in preparation for the Tokyo 2020 Games. An analytic logic
model and realist policy evaluation were employed based on the document analysis
and semi-structured interviews to understand how Olympic education programmes for
the Tokyo 2020 Games work depending on underlying mechanisms in a specific
context. The findings show that various stakeholders have been involved in the
promotion of Olympic education in their own ways the broader reflecting Olympic
education policy community and the specific Tokyo 2020 policy network which
incorporates aspects of the Olympic community and the Japanese education system
with each of the institutions having slightly or very different policy agendas. In addition
to this, the involvement of the University of Tsukuba (CORE) in training and policy
development in the Olympic education offers a significant potential contribution for
sustaining positive education or learning legacies in Olympic education even in the
post-2020 Tokyo Games.
6|Page1. Introduction
When Pierre de Coubertin introduced the modern Olympic Games, one of the ideals
for the revival of the Games was the centrality of education (Müller, 2000). Despite
Coubertin’s educational philosophy and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s
intention to promote the Olympic Movement and values through Olympic education
specified in the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2017) and the Olympic Agenda 2020 (IOC,
2014), there has been a lack of specificity in the definition of the concept of Olympic
education as well as of Olympic values being (or intending to be) delivered through
Olympic education initiatives. Thus, explanation of Olympic education as a concept
and set of practices is relatively imprecise in the literature. Nevertheless, as a policy
aim for the Olympic Movement, the development of Olympic education programmes
remains a key goal for the IOC and thus for host cities and nations staging the Games.
For example, since the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games, an applicant city
is not only required to deliver an educational programme during the actual Games, but
also beforehand, during the seven years between the IOC’s deciding vote and the
actual opening ceremony of the Games (Naul, 2008).
To address this ‘fuzzy’ nature of Olympic education, the analysis of literature on
Olympic education is undertaken through a meta-narrative approach to systematic
review developed by Greenhalgh et al. (2005). The results of the review (which form
a foundation for the development of the empirical work undertaken in this report) will
be demonstrated in Section 3. Conducting a meta-narrative review of the literature is
not the key part of this report. Through the meta-narrative review, however, there is a
gap identified in work undertaken on Olympic education to date which is consideration
of the impact of a cultural context on the nature of Olympic education planning and
implementation. In any attempt to address this area, it will be essential to understand
the nature of Olympic education programmes and what they consist of, what their
pedagogical goals are intended to be, whom they are intended to target, how they
should be evaluated and how successful they have been in meeting their goals.
Moreover, we need to understand how ideas around Olympism and Olympic education
are operationalised in different cultural contexts although Olympism and the notion of
Olympic values are described as ‘universal’ (Parry, 2006). For this reason, the
empirical element of this research focuses on analysis of the nature of Olympic
education programmes as developed in the context of Japan’s preparation for the
Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, a context which is somewhat different
from the predominantly Western origins of the development of Olympic education
philosophy and practice.
Thus, this research reported here conducted in the context of cooperation between
the Centres of Olympic Studies at Loughborough University and the University of
Tsukuba (COS&R and CORE), focuses on inter-cultural understanding of Olympism
and on approaches to policy for planning, implementing and evaluating Olympic
education programmes.
7|Page2. Nature of Olympic Education
The revival of the modern Olympic Games was bound up with proposals for reform of
the French educational systems for which Pierre de Coubertin was campaigning. He
was concerned about severe problems such as class conflict, poverty, disease and
despair resulting from rapid industrialisation and urbanisation (Kidd, 1996). He sought
solutions to overcome social and political crises in part through educational reform
(Hoberman, 1995). Before he had a mind to found the modern Olympic Games, in
1880s, Coubertin in researching educational reform investigated the approach
employed at Rugby School under the leadership of Thomas Arnold, who sought to
transform English physical education (Müller, 2000). Coubertin visited public schools
and reviewed teaching approaches in order to learn how to introduce team sports like
cricket and football as part of the school curriculum, not only for the purpose of physical
training but also for character building among young people (Naul and Binder, 2017).
He described his experiences in his book titled L’Education en Angleterre (Education
in England), referring to two fundamental principles: strengthening the body by means
of sport, while at the same time, developing character, an approach adapted from
Arnold’s principles of public school education (Naul, 2008). In addition, he travelled to
the United States and Canada and was inspired by intercollegiate sporting
competitions.
Coubertin was also influenced by the ancient Greek’s gymnasium of antiquity. He
envisioned it as a cultural site dedicated to the cult of eurhythmy as a means of training
body, will and mind (Naul and Binder, 2017), which became a central concept of
Olympism defined as “a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole
the qualities of body, will and mind” (IOC, 2017). In this regard, Coubertin started to
organise an international sporting event for educating young people as well as of
creating international goodwill. His passion and enthusiasm for education was thus
directly related to the establishment of the IOC. In 1894, he invited colleagues and
friends to a congress and introduced a plan to revive the Olympic Games, along with
the aims of the Olympic Movement (IOC, 2007) as follows; 1) to promote the
development of those physical and moral qualities which are the basis of sport; 2) to
educate young people through sport in a spirit of better understanding between each
other and of friendship, thereby helping to build a better and more peaceful world; 3)
to spread the Olympic principles throughout the world, thereby creating international
goodwill; and 4) to bring together the athletes of the world in a great four-yearly sports
festival, the Olympic Games.
It is evident that these four goals are collectively reflected in the nature and goals of
Olympism and the Olympic Movement in their relationship with educational
philosophy. While Coubertin introduced the concept of a modern Olympic Games with
pedagogical, moral and educational ideals, he never coined the term ‘Olympic
education’. Nevertheless, we are encouraged to contribute to building a better world
by way of the spread of Olympism and Olympic education as a mission. Despite
Coubertin’s educational ideas being important, there is a lack of definitive
understanding of how the concepts of Olympic education, Olympism and Olympic
values have been operationalised.
There are several reasons contributing to the difficulties in defining the nature of the
field of Olympic education and Olympic values to be promoted through Olympic
education in the Olympic Movement. First, Coubertin had written extensively about
8|Page“pedagogie sportive”, not only in the publication of this title (Coubertin, 1922) but also
in multiple essays and speeches. However, the notion of Olympic education was never
specified in Coubertin’s work since he did not use the term Olympic education but
more frequently used ‘Olympic pedagogy’ and ‘sport pedagogy’ (Naul, 2008).
Nevertheless, Coubertin did write about the term Olympism suggesting that “Olympism
can become a school for moral nobility and purity as well as endurance and energy,
but this can happen only if you continually raise your concept of athletic honour and
impartiality to the level of your muscular ability” (Muller, 2000:560). Coubertin’s own
view and evaluation of Olympism as a “system” does not allow, therefore, any
unequivocal definition of what we should understand by Olympic education and
Olympic values (Naul, 2008).
Another famous quote by Coubertin relates that “Olympism is not a system; it is a state
of mind. The most widely divergent approaches can be accommodated in it, and no
race or time can hold an exclusive monopoly on it (Müller, 2000:548)”. According to
this definition of Olympism, it implies that Olympism is open to change and adaption
to present circumstances, to enable it to update and accentuate its universal values
and principles as appropriate for their successful realisation alongside the ongoing
developments in sport and society (Naul, 2008). Followed by the nature of Olympism,
a definitive account of concepts of Olympic values and education is also changing over
time (Chatziefstathiou, 2005; Parry, 2006). Parry (2006) states that “Olympism is a
universal philosophy which is relevant to everyone regardless of nation, race, gender,
social class, religion or ideology”. The principles of Olympism are supposed to be
unchanging yet they have inevitably changed over time and space. Chatziefstathiou
and Henry (2012) suggest that Olympism may not be defined by a set of immutable
values but as a process for consensus construction in terms of values in the world of
global sport, a process that they characterise as a form of discourse ethics. In this
regard, given the nature of Olympism, differing approaches to Olympic values and
touchstone of Olympism, it might be anticipated that different concepts of Olympic
education are emerging.
Second, the IOC, the supreme authority of the Olympic Movement in the world, did
show little interest in promoting Olympic education in the early years after the revival.
Influenced by Coubertin’s educational ideals embedded in the Olympic Movement, it
might have been complicated to define not only what Olympic education is but also in
what ways Olympic education is promoted. According the various editions of the
Olympic Charter (IOC, 1908 – 2017), the IOC first mentioned “the promotion and
encouragement of the physical, moral and cultural education of the youth of the nation,
for the development of character, good health and good citizenship” as part of the
NOC’s roles firstly added to the Olympic Charter in 1954. Until then, the IOC had
written largely about the statutes of the IOC and rules of the Olympic Games in the
Charters.
However, it does not mean that the IOC and NOCs did not make efforts constructing
institutional strategies for the promotion of Olympic education. The IOC established
the International Olympic Academy (IOA) in 1961 as an international educational and
cultural institution and the Olympic Solidarity Committee working closely with the
NOCs in 1971, which developed its own type of Olympic education as part of the World
Programme later on. In the meanwhile, the term ‘Olympic Education’ firstly appeared
in sports education and Olympic research (Müller, 1974). Due to growing internal and
external attention to education related to the Olympic ideals, scholars started exploring
9|Pageon the term of ‘Olympic education’ with various views in earnest, in line with IOC’s
explicit commitment to Olympic education. The IOC took action for the promotion of
Olympic education at the 12th IOC Congress held in Paris in 1994, when it expressly
demanded the long-term promotion of Olympic ideals as part of the bidding process
for Olympic Games (Naul et al., 2017). Another IOC’s key policy in terms of Olympic
education and values is directly highlighted as ‘Recommendation 22 Spreading
Olympic value-based education’ in the Agenda 2020 (IOC, 2014).
The last reason is that the focus has been on prescription rather than heuristic. It is
claimed that as the IOC’s recent explicit commitment, it published two sets of different
principles in 2007. In an issue of the Olympic Review, Maass (2007) refers to
“excellence”, “friendship”, and “respect” as core Olympic values, which have been
intensively promoted through Olympic education programmes. The other publication
is Olympic Value Education Programme (IOC, 2007; 2016). The OVEP aims to
disseminate a values-based curriculum that shapes the development of child and
youth character (IOC, 2017). It is expected that the intended goal for Olympic values
education can be achieved by utilising them in and out of school curriculum. However,
in terms of the policy for implementing and evaluating Olympic education programmes,
it is also significant to understand what Olympic education consists of, what their
pedagogical goals should be, whom they should target and how successful they have
been and so on in different cultural contexts. In this regard, analysing what is actually
promoted in Olympic education rather than what should be communicated through
Olympic education programmes is to be concentrated on for the understanding of the
nature of Olympic education.
Recently, the IOC formally added the definition of ‘Olympic education’ to the Olympic
terminology. It is stated that “Information and activities that promote the development
of the knowledge, values and behaviours that promote Olympism and the mission of
the Olympic Movement” (IOC, 2016:119). This definition, however, does not give clear
definitive understanding of how the concepts of Olympic education, Olympism and
Olympic values have been operationalised. So, questions raised here are “How can
we educate young people through sport in accordance with Olympism and its values?”
and “How has Olympic education been developed, delivered, and evaluated for the
purpose of Olympic Movement in the policy context?”. To sum up, although the field
of Olympic education is complex and relatively undefined topic in the Olympic related
studies, there are a number of scholars developing discussions of it with certain
perspectives and the IOC has made explicit contribution to the focus on Olympic
education for a couple of decades. Thus, there is a need to map out the field to clarify
the different interpretations and emphases of the philosophy and its operationalisation
in curriculum terms and to understand about how these Olympic universals are
perceived and communicated in culturally diverse contexts.
10 | P a g e3. Results of Meta-narrative review
Although the analysis of meta-narratives in the literature on Olympic education does
not form part of this research project funded by the IOC per se, it does provide a crucial
element of the content for the IOC funded study. Thus, I describe briefly the methods
and outcomes of the analysis of meta-narratives. The contents related to stages of
conducting a meta-narrative review and preliminary results of the review of the
literature on Olympic education were presented elsewhere in three international
conferences.
This section will show the results of a meta-narrative review of the literature on Olympic
education. Six themes (research traditions) in relation to Olympic education emerged
through a meta-narrative approach to a Systematic Review of the literature, including
education psychology, curriculum development, critical sociology, education
evaluation, philosophical studies and policy evaluation. The development of a meta-
narrative analysis is significant in terms of providing a critical understanding of the way
that Olympic education is being conceptualised in particular relation to Olympic values
and the Olympic Movement. The conceptual framework developed from the elements
of this meta-narrative review is used to directly inform empirical evaluation of Olympic
education initiatives of the Tokyo 2020.
The analysis of literature on Olympic education is undertaken through a meta-narrative
review employing techniques recently developed by Greenhalgh et al. (2005). A
systematic review is defined as “a review in which there is a comprehensive search
for relevant studies on a specific topic and those identified are then appraised and
synthesised according to a pre-determined explicit method (Klassen et al., 1988). The
meta-narrative review represents an extension of the systematic review methodology
promoting a specific approach to the analysis of the findings of a systematic review.
The development of the meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate different
paradigmatic approaches to a complex and heterogeneous topic area by different
groups of researchers.
The rationale for using a meta-narrative review for the analysis of the literature is that
although the research topic ‘Olympic education’ has been used widely both in
academic areas and policy evaluation, how Olympic education is being conceptualised
and evaluated is unclear. Since promotion of Olympic education became a required
element for those cities participating in the candidature process, how Olympic
education can be structured and implemented has been a favoured topic. Many
scholars place an emphasis on implementation of Olympic education programmes or
initiatives (Binder, 2001; Naul, 2008). On the other hand, other scholars have centred
more on the nature of Olympic values and Olympism and their promotion through the
Olympics rather than programmes (Chatziefstathiou, 2012; Teetzel, 2012). It is also
the case on Olympic education as a practice has been differently understood in
culturally diverse contexts (Brownell, 2009; Wang and Masumoto, 2009) and has been
subject to analysis through a range of critical lenses (Kidd, 1996; Lenskyj, 2012). Thus,
the literature on the topic covers multiple research traditions across various academic
disciplines with a range of underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological
approaches and it is assumed that the topic provides a suitable subject for a review
using a meta-narrative technique.
There are key terms which are helpful for the understandings of meta-narrative review.
11 | P a g e‘Meta-narrative’ refers to the shared set of concepts, theories and preferred methods
taken by a group of researchers who form a research tradition and ‘meta-narratives’
are ‘storylines’ that unpack how research unfolds and changes over time within a
research tradition (Greenhalgh et al. 2005). Informed by Kuhn’s notion of scientific
paradigms (1962), a paradigm is ‘a world view’ built into a particular research approach
and a research tradition is a group of approaches coherent within systems of shared
understanding of the ways of doing social science. Thus, different research traditions
have different ways of looking at has developed and the world (paradigms) and
different ways of looking at the world implying different stories (meta-narratives) of how
the phenomenon we are looking at should be understood. Greenhalgh et al. (2005)
outline the process as consisting of six phases: a) planning; b) searching; c) mapping;
d) appraisal; e) synthesis; and f) recommendations. I have applied the steps to the
analysis of the meta-narrative review and identified six research traditions. Instead of
recommendations phase, writing up phase is more suitable as it is the summary of the
range of perspectives, methods and conclusions based on the selected papers and
evaluation of implications for policy and practice. The review process is presented in
Figure 1.
In this report, the results of the analysis of meta-narrative review identify the six
research traditions organised by a) relevant academic disciplines; b) scope; c) focus
of analysis; d) conceptualisation of Olympic education; and e) key authors in Table 1
below.
12 | P a g eFigure 1: Summary of phases in the meta-narrative review
Planning how to conduct a review
Planning
and database searches
phase
Searching Preliminary scoping search: using Systematic search: electronic
phase personal networks and knowledge, searching in databases based on key
browsing books and journals word searching techniques
Identification of relevant studies and key disciplines: pedagogy,
sociology, philosophy, psychology, policy & management
Mapping
phase
Identification of seminal articles and research traditions
Appraisal
Evaluation of all included articles by use of data extraction forms
phase
Identifying meta-narratives within each
discipline and translating meta-narratives
across research traditions
Synthesis
phase Meta-narratives in Meta-narratives in Meta-narratives in
educational psychology curriculum development critical sociology
Meta-narratives in Meta-narratives in educational Meta-narratives in
philosophical studies (programme) evaluation policy evaluation
Writing up phase Summary of the range of
Evaluation of implications for
(Recommendation) perspectives, methods, and
policy and practice
conclusions with 70 selected papers
13 | P a g eTable 1: Results of a meta-narrative review of the literature on Olympic education
Research Focus Scope and key question(s) Focus of analysis Olympic education Selected authors
Tradition Discipline conceptualised as
Educational Evaluation Study of development or implementation of Analysis of proposed or Achieving outcomes Grammatikopoulos
evaluation measures for evaluation, focusing on the developed methods to be of Olympic et al (2004a;
(efficacy of evaluation design and applicability of applied for evaluation of how education 2004b; 2005),
quantitative measures, in order to evaluate the Olympic education programme programmes which
techniques) implementation of educational programmes is implemented are effective or can be efficiently
not (efficacy of evaluation evaluated through a
Key question(s): methods) range of evaluation
- How effectively can we measure an - Dynamic evaluation methods, principally
Olympic education programme (or related approach applying quantitative
programmes)? - Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy techniques
- Does the (suggested) instrument work in Scale (TSES) for teachers’
evaluation of an Olympic education training programme
programme? - Quantitative statistical
techniques (e.g. new method
based on exploratory factor
analysis)
Educational Psychology, Study of human learning to promote social, Analysis of the changes in Olympic education Papadimitriou et al.
psychology evaluation emotional and behavioural development young people’s attitudes and has the potential for (2005); Hassandra
through education programmes behaviours towards promoting positive et al. (2007);
Olympism, Olympic values, impacts on Šukys &
Key question(s): motivations, participation in improving young Majauskienė (2013,
- Does the Olympic education programme sports and so on following people’s moral 2014); Šukys et
work? exposure to Olympic behaviours and al.(2017)
- To what extent do the effects of the education programmes and changing attitudes
Olympic education programme have an thus to evaluate the towards values
appropriate effect on the development of effectiveness of Olympic
young people’s behaviours? education programmes
Critical Sociology Study of critical analysis and interpretation Analysis of literature on the There is a lack of Kidd (1996);
sociology of Olympism and education programmes notion of Olympism, Olympic critical perspectives Kohe (2010);
with critical sociology perspectives based values, Olympic education, on Olympism in Krieger (2012);
on the premise that societies are Olympic education Olympic educational Lenskyi (2012)
characterised by conflict relations and that programmes for the promotion resources and
Olympic education represents an of the interests of certain critical thinking,
ideological resource for promoting the groups in practices and analytic skills, and
14 | P a g einterests of certain groups educational resources, policy critical literacy
documents and so on among teachers and
Key question(s): young people are
- What is meaning of Olympic ideology, largely absent in the
Olympism and Olympic education? Are development of
there any differences between the ideals of Olympic education
Olympism and Olympism in reality? programme.
- Are there any educational resources or
content for Olympic education including
critical thinking or critical perspectives on
the Olympic Movement?
Curriculum Pedagogy Study of the processes of developing the Analysis of elements of the Various pedagogical Binder (2001;
development theoretical orientation, conceptual design, development of Olympic approaches / 2012); Culpan &
content and implementation/application education programme conceptual models Wigmore (2010);
strategies for educational resources and curriculum focusing on what are used for the Kohe (2010);
programmes based on how critical aims are, what content is development of Chatziefstathiou
understanding of Olympic values might be embedded within resources, Olympic education (2012)
promoted what teaching methods are programme typically
used, what type of programme as school curriculum
Key question(s): is delivered such as extra- (e.g. Olympism
- How is the curriculum of Olympic curriculum, PE classes, education, Olympic
education programme structured? subject classes and so on values education
- How do young people learn positive and Olympic
behaviours and values? learning process for
- How can we develop a better curriculum Olympism and value
for Olympic education with a greater legacies)
positive impact?
Policy Policy Study of analysis of policy (and for policy) Analysis of IOC’s policies Olympic education Wang & Masumoto
evaluation analysis, to achieve intended goals and evaluation of related to Olympic education programmes and (2009);
management how an Olympic education programme is and review of Olympic policies have been Monnin (2012);
developed, implemented and evaluated in education programmes critically reviewed in Knijnik & Tavares
different contexts developed and implemented in relation to (2012);
different countries before and achievement of Wong (2012);
Key question(s): during the Olympics with a Olympic policy goals Kohe & Brown-
- What kinds of policies were created and focus of specific values, of Olympics and Jones (2016);
implemented to meet goals? different aims and outcomes other governmental Chen & Henry
- What kind of outcomes were achieved organisations (2017);
through Olympic education?
- What and how can we improve and
15 | P a g edevelop Olympic education programmes
based on the analysis of policy and lessons
learned from other programmes?
Philosophical Philosophy Study of meaning of Olympism, Olympic Analysis of Coubertin’s Comprehensive Parry (1998; 2006);
studies movement, and values writings on Olympism and approach to Martínková (2012);
values and literature on understanding and Teetzel (2012)
Key question(s): interpretations and teaching Olympic
- What is Olympism, Olympic Movement understanding of such values education (values,
and values? for Olympic education in ethics, moral
- How can we teach the philosophy of practice education,
Olympism? intercultural
understanding,
multiculturalism)
16 | P a g eTable 1 above highlights that the literature on Olympic education has been
conceptualised as falling within the fields of pedagogy, sociology, psychology, policy
analysis and management as inter-disciplinary perspectives, literally combining or
involving more than two academic disciplines or fields of study. Pedagogy and
evaluation of education programmes, for example, permeate almost every research
tradition. Nevertheless, taking account of the meta-narrative approach to this review,
sharing key concepts, theories and methodological assumptions allow us to identify
concrete separate research traditions. Although the full version of the meta-narrative
review of the literature on Olympic education is provided in the researcher’s doctoral
thesis (Hwang, forthcoming 2018), below I describe examples of meta-narratives
related to the conceptualisation of Olympic education for illustrative purposes.
Meta-narrative 1: Educational Evaluation (of efficacy of quantitative techniques)
This kind of research forms a research tradition stemming from predominantly
positivist forms of educational evaluation in terms of seeking to assess the efficacy of
certain specific quantitative techniques. The work of this group of researchers
suggests that this is one way of looking at how to employ evaluation measures. The
researchers in this tradition have sought to develop various instruments for evaluating
how effectively the education was implemented, including measures by which to
evaluate training programmes for teachers and the relationship between teaching
behaviours and students’ performance. However, this work has not been widely
discussed in the Olympic studies relevant to Olympic education over the ensuing
decade although measuring the effectiveness of educational interventions is one of
the main areas of development in the field of education studies.
Meta-narrative 2: Educational Psychology
Meta-narratives in educational psychology are concerned with human learning to
promote social, emotional and behavioural development through educational
interventions. The seminal studies examine the effects of Olympic education
programmes on fair play behaviours in sports, students’ prosocial and moral
behaviours and attitudes towards the values of Olympism. Thus, it is evident that these
studies seek to evaluate the claims that Olympic education programme can be used
as a means of developing young students’ positive attitudes and behaviours employing
a cross-sectional quantitative study again predominantly in the positivist tradition.
However, these studies could not provide insights into or robust evidence of how and
why Olympic education affects personal values and behavioural changes not only in
sport activity but also in everyday life.
Meta-narrative 3: Critical sociology
This meta-narrative draws on critical sociological interpretations of Olympism and
Olympic values typically influenced by a Marxist/ neo-Marxist, or radical feminist
tradition. Researchers in this research tradition focus on identifying the ideological
functions of, and contradictions within Olympic systems with understanding of an
inherent tension between the Olympic Movement with its explicit goals based on
Olympic values, and the tendency to use the Olympic Games to foster the interests of
the global consumer market and capitalist values, or of patriarchal values. Although it
is agreed that Olympic education falls under the promotion of moral, values, and peace
education to young people, authors in the theme argue that critical approaches to the
analysis of Olympic education programmes and use of educational materials by
17 | P a g eteachers and young students are largely absent in the literature related to Olympic
education.
In addition, Olympic athletes as role models for children and youth may often be
problematic because celebrity athletes whose behaviours fail to demonstrate Olympic
values such as sportsmanship, fair play, cooperation and respect for others and for
rules, impact negatively on young people. Thus, a common suggestion relating to one
direction in the development of Olympic education, is that there should be an
enhanced focus on the education of the athletes to make them more aware of the
nature and significance of Olympic values, and the difficulties of realising such goals
and values.
Meta-narrative 4: Curriculum development
Meta-narratives in curriculum development deal with the processes of developing
theoretical orientation, conceptual design, content and implementation and application
strategies for resources and programmes. Basically, there are three key elements of
a curriculum: objectives, content or subject matter, and learning experiences. For the
development of Olympic education programme as a curriculum, researchers in this
tradition focus on “how do young people learn moral and positive behaviours and
values through Olympic education?” To seek answers to this question, they first
examine educational materials and Olympic education curriculum with a view to
developing a critical paradigm for ‘better education’.
Depending on the ways in which they approach materials and learning experiences
and various pedagogical orientations, contesting directions for curriculum
development have emerged. Some scholars including Culpan and Wigmore (2010)
see that physical education and sport practices in school have direct application to
“Olympism education” which focuses on Olympism utilising a critical pedagogy. On the
other hand, Binder (2012) questions whether Olympic education programmes should
be centred on physical education curricula, which comprehensively contextualise
curriculum outcomes and activities related to developing values through sport and
sport activities which can be differently present in other settings. Thus, she has
developed “values education” beyond schools and PE classes to an integration of the
Olympic idea within everyday life (as suggested in Naul’s (2008) notion of a lifeworld
curriculum orientation). This orientation provides a more flexible and integrated context
for implementation of an Olympic values education initiative, drawing attention to the
positive aspects of “joy of effort in sport and physical activity” from the perspective of
other subject areas or community projects. In addition, it further extends to the
discussion of value legacies that are achieved through Olympic “learning processes”
which reflect a range of educational opportunities outside school, focus beyond young
people on the wider community and demonstrate partnerships for generating value
legacies linked with Olympism and the Olympic Games (Chatziefstathiou, 2012).
Meta-narrative 5: Policy evaluation
Another research tradition draws on policy analysis which has broadly focused in
policy processes and policy outcomes related to Olympic education. Since the
development of an ‘official’ Olympic education programme became a virtually
compulsory requirement for host cities/nations, from the 2004 Athens Games to date,
we have experienced various Olympic education initiatives associated with the Beijing
2008, London 2012, and Rio 2016 and upcoming Olympic games in 2020 in Tokyo. In
18 | P a g eaddition, the IOC created the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) for young people not only
to participate in sporting competition but also to learn about Olympic education through
the specific education programme, the Culture and Education Programme (CEP).
The elements in the policy evaluation by analysing Olympic education initiatives
provide some overlapping meta-narratives with those in the curriculum studies as most
papers in both of the research traditions deal with education programme in the school
curriculum. However, the focus of analysis and research aims of the papers on policy
analysis and evaluation are distinguishable from them. For policy evaluation, based
on empirical findings, researchers mainly provide an overview of Olympic education
programmes developed and delivered in specific contexts and examine their outcomes
and problems of operationalisation by focusing on analysing on goals specified policy
documents and their implementation. In this regard, Olympic education programmes
were investigated before or during the Olympic Games, which suggests that there are
significant difficulties in the evaluation of long-term outcomes or impacts of Olympic
education programme.
Regarding the theoretical and methodological foundations of policy and evaluation
study, although some studies provide a critical overview and analysis of educational
interventions, there is a lack of the study of policy evaluation in terms of directly
informing the implementation of theory in general. Thus, it is clear that a growing
volume of work is undertaken in the field of Olympic education to assess how
programmes have been delivered, what outcomes are achieved, and how these relate
to policy goals. However, particular approaches to identify “what works for whom in
what circumstances, to produce what kinds of outcomes?” have not been prominent.
These types of research question are promoted by realist policy evaluation (Pawson
and Tilley, 1997) who emphasise the importance of identifying the way in which causal
mechanisms in the achievement of policy goals will invariably be mediated by
contextual factors.
Meta-narrative 6: Philosophical studies
This research tradition attempts to gain insights into questions about knowledge, truth,
reason, reality, meaning, mind and values. Scholars in the philosophical studies mainly
focus on various interpretations of Coubertin’s writing on Olympism and clarification
and examination of the ideals of Olympism which permeate Olympic education
programmes. Most research in this tradition identify fairness, equality, ethical
behaviours, multiculturalism, peace, respect and so on which are not only commonly
promoted through Olympic education programme but require differential interpretation
in different cultures. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the nature and meaning
of Olympism using philosophical literature helps to conceptualise somewhat vague
descriptions of Olympism which is key elements for the development of Olympic
education programmes. This literature is often normative, or involves critique of
normative accounts of Olympic values and the appropriateness of ways of realising
such values.
19 | P a g e4. Research aim and objectives
As mentioned in the previous section, this research is to a significant degree founded
on insights from the development of the meta-narrative review of the literature on
Olympic education. The results of the review identify how Olympic education has been
conceptualised based on different research traditions and develop a framework to
explain the nature of diversity in this heterogeneous field of study. While studies of
Olympic education in different national contexts have been undertaken and critically
reviewed, there has been a lack of focus on the specific cultural context of such work.
In addition, there has been a difficulty delivering on the legacy promises for Olympic
education policies or programmes which are proposed for hosting a successful
Games. The empirical research undertaken in relation to the organisation of Olympic
education policies and programmes in the context of the Tokyo 2020 Games seeks to
identify the extent to which the Tokyo 2020 approach(es) address these gaps.
Considering the Japanese context, which is set to host the Olympic Games in 2020,
there have been a number of types of Olympic educational programmes designed and
implemented over Japan by different levels of stakeholders being actively involved in
the promotion of Olympism and the Olympic Movement. As Japanese Olympic
education programmes are also integrated within the national curriculum in schools,
Japan represents a particularly interesting context. Thus, the aim of this study is to
review the planning of Olympic education policy in practice in terms of development,
delivery and evaluation in preparation for the Tokyo 2020 Games. More specifically
the objectives of this research are thus defined as follows:
1) To identify how the various stakeholders in the Japanese Olympic/
governmental system have designed and implemented, or are designing and
implementing Olympic education programmes for Tokyo 2020 Games in the
preparation stage for the Games
2) To establish the relationship between the cultural context of both Japanese
society, government and the governance of the Japanese Olympic system and
the nature of the Olympic education goals and programmes developed in the
Japanese context (in other words, the study seeks to identify the relationship
between generic features of the Olympic education system and the culturally
specific elements)
3) To apply a realist analysis framework to consider the development of policy
evaluation approaches to assess the rationales for curriculum development and
delivery, and to assess outcomes sought in Tokyo 2020 Olympic education
initiatives
20 | P a g e5. Conceptualisation of governance of the Japanese Olympic
system for Tokyo 2020
This section presents the governance of the Japanese Olympic system for Tokyo
2020. Figure 2 provides an overview of the stakeholders directly and indirectly involved
in promoting Olympism and Olympic values in the Japanese Olympic system,
highlighting different levels of stakeholders such as the national level, local level,
Olympic actors, and external actors.
Figure 2: Governance of Japanese Olympic system
National level Local level Olympic actors External actors
MEXT
• JSA √ TMG √ JOC √ / JPC Universities
JSC Japan Anti-
• JISS Regional Schools √
Doping
authorities
Agency
Domestic and
University of
international
Tsukuba
education
(CORE) √
institutions
Jigoro Kano
Memorial Business
International community
Sport Institute
(All-Japan Structure)
The highlighted (√) are used for analysis of case studies in this research
For the Tokyo 2020 Games, the Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and
Paralympic Committee (TOCOG), composed of members of the key stakeholders at
each level, is established in 2014. For the purpose of sharing the vision of Tokyo 2020,
TOCOG established an “All-Japan Structure” (TOCOG, 2016). This Structure is
formed of the Japanese Olympic Committee (JOC), the Japanese Para-Sports
Association, the Japanese Paralympic Committee (JPC), the Tokyo Metropolitan
Government (TMG), the Government of Japan, the business community and other
21 | P a g erelevant organisations such as universities. In the context of there being a limit to the
scope of the activities that TOCOG is able to undertake and since TOCOG as a body
will cease to exist after 2020, because the organising committee will be dissolved, the
All-Japan Structure is intended to play a significant role in delivering a wide range of
actions and activities related to the Olympics which would be beyond the capacity of
TOCOG. Thus, actions and activities for Tokyo 2020 are to be carried out now and in
the future not only by the organising committee and its delivery partners alone, but
also by many regional and municipal authorities, groups and individuals which form
part of the All-Japan Structure.
Within both the Olympic governance system and All-Japan Structure for Tokyo 2020,
responsibility for the development and delivery of Olympic education is spread across
a diverse range of bodies from the national/local levels through to Olympic/external
actors levels. With this in mind, this research has sought to identify the kinds of
educational initiatives and programmes developed by different stakeholders; how
these programmes are delivered to young people and Japanese communities; and
what makes the programmes work. As shown in Figure 2 before, Olympic education
initiatives and programmes promoted by the highlighted stakeholders are used and
analysed for the case studies.
22 | P a g e6. Evaluation Approaches to Analysis
This section presents the theoretical basis of this research. Two key elements of the
theoretical framework for the analysis and evaluation of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic
education practices in policy are introduced, namely: Logic Models and Realist Policy
Evaluation. A logic model is a way of visually and systematically presenting and
sharing understanding of the relationships between intervention’s inputs, activities,
and intended results in terms of both immediate outputs and longer term outcomes.
Logic models are often used and developed within theory-based evaluation because
the process of developing a logic model that describes “what a programme intends to
achieve” and “how it will achieve it” builds shared understanding of performance
expectations (Jordan, 2010) and thus can be used for prescriptive purposes. However,
typical logic models may not be appropriate for programmes which are regarded as
sophisticated social interactions set amidst a complex social reality. Thus, analytic
logic models and realist policy evaluation are employed to refine and test how Olympic
education programmes for the Tokyo 2020 work depending on underlying
mechanisms in a specific context.
6.1. Use of Logic models
The term ‘logic model’ was used in the first publication titled “Evaluation: Promise and
Performance” by Joseph S. Wholey (1979). Since then, developing a logic model is
considered a useful tool for planning and evaluation purposes (HM. Treasury, 2011;
Kaplan and Garrett, 2005; W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Figure 3 presents a
common type of logic model although a logic model can be developed in various ways.
The planned work describes what resource is needed to implement certain programme
activities while the intended results include all of the programmes’ desired results
(outputs, outcomes and impact). The following Table 2 shows the descriptions of key
elements to guides how to frame a logic model.
Figure 3: A basic logic model
Resources
Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact
/ Inputs
Planned Work Intended Results
(Source: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004)
23 | P a g eTable 2: Descriptions of the key elements of a logic model
Key elements What are they?
Inputs/resources The inputs refer to the human, financial, organisational and
community resources a programme has available to direct
toward doing the work
Activities The activities (throughputs) are the process, tools, events,
(Throughputs) technology, and actions that are an intentional part of the
programme implementation. These interventions are used to
bring about the intended programme changes or results
Outputs The outputs are the direct products of programme activities
and may include types, levels and targets of services to be
delivered by the programme
Outcomes The outcomes are the specific changes in programme
participants’ behaviour, knowledge, skills, status and level of
functioning
Impact The Impact is the fundamental intended or unintended change
occurring in organisations, communities, or systems as a result
of programme activities
i(Source: Adapted from W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004)
It is apparent to see how a programme’s goal and objectives would be achieved in a
linear diagram of logic models. It also requires systematic thinking and planning to
better describe programmes. However, the classic logic model has some limitations.
One concern is that the logic model represents a reality which is somewhat inaccurate
because although the design of the common logic models is in a linear fashion,
programmes are not often linear and have dynamic interrelationships among the
elements (Sundra et al., 2003). In this respect, the linear approach of the classic logic
model may not be appropriate given the complexity of programme. Another limitation
is that, in terms of outcomes, a logic model only highlights expected outcomes; despite
the fact that unexpected and unintended outcomes may occur in a programme.
Pawson and Tilley (1997:8) state that “programmes are almost always introduced into
multiple contexts, in the sense that causal mechanisms activated by interventions will
vary according to saliently different conditions. Because of relevant variations in
context and mechanisms thereby activated, any programme is liable to have mixed
intended and unintended outcome-patterns”. Thus, in order to maximise the benefits
as well as to mitigate the concerns, an analytic logic model can be discussed.
Chen et al. (2013) outline the two types of logic models: the descriptive logic model
and the analytic logic model. As a starting point, a descriptive logic model which
basically presents the key elements in chronological order is useful. However, for the
purpose of the evaluation of an intervention, an analytic logic model, which is not
normative and prescriptive but heuristic and explanatory, is more appropriate to be
employed because an analytic model focuses on causal relationships between the
elements influenced by various contexts and mechanisms. In effect, theories of
change are built into analytic models such that the reasons for the desired change
being achieved, can be tested and evaluated in ways which can contribute to future
policy and practice. Figure 4 shows the application of an analytic logic model for
Olympic education programmes.
24 | P a g eYou can also read
