Development Sport "Pessimism of the intellect Optimism of the will" - Prof Fred Coalter University of Stirling
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Sport-for-development “Pessimism of the intellect Optimism of the will” Prof Fred Coalter University of Stirling
Sport-in-Development: A Monitoring and Evaluation Manual UK Sport/UNICEF. 2006 MYSA, Nairobi ; Go Sisters, Lusaka; YES, Harare; Magic Bus, Mumbai • Liberia: Post war conflict resolution • Senegal: Rural Muslim communities • Malawi: Street children and re-integration • South Africa 1: Children and risk: Cape Town • South Africa 2: Peer leader training: Limpopo/ Eastern Cape • Uganda 1: HIV/AIDS Kampala • Uganda 2: Refugees/IDP camps • Tanzania: HIV/AIDS and female empowerment • Mumbai: Slum and street children • Calcutta: Railway children
Going beyond the touchline? Sport for Development and Peace: Towards Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, 2005 The world of sport presents a natural partnership for the United Nations’ system. By its very nature sport is about participation. It is about inclusion and citizenship. Sport brings individuals and communities together, highlighting commonalties and bridging cultural or ethnic divides. Sport provides a forum to learn skills such as discipline, confidence and leadership and it teaches core principles such as tolerance, cooperation and respect.
A new aid paradigm? Economic capital governance civil society/social capital (i) How are such programmes meant to work: programme theory? (ii) What assumptions do we make about participants? (iii) Displacement of scope: a need for a bit more humility?
So many
roads, so
Sport plus
Sport-in- few maps
developme
r- nt
fo
po rt-
m ent
S elop Plus
dev sport
t
p or
S
‘Intriguingly vague and open for several interpretations’ Kruse
Sports evangelism
Mythopoeic nature of sport
• Popular/idealistic ideas produced outside sociological analysis
• Demarcation criteria not specific: sport /sport-for-development
‘Intriguingly vague and open for several interpretations’ Kruse
• Vague/generalised images, elements of truth reified/distorted
‘represent’ not reflect reality : ad hominem ‘evidence’
• Relationships between some variables to exclusion of others
• Stand for supposed, but unexamined, impacts/processes
metaphors
The magic of sport
Sport
Magic box; social vaccine ☺
‘Sport’ presumed to have causal powers
Closed system: medical/treatment model
Measure ‘outcomes’ : often retrospectively
Generalisation: “Sport canA
A question of sport
‘ A.there is nothing about Asport itself that is magicalA.It is the
experience of sport that may facilitate the result’. Papacharisisi et al (2005)
☺
Patrikson (1998)
“ Sport, like most activities, is not a priori good or bad, but has the
potential of producing both positive or negative outcomes.
Questions like ‘what conditions are necessary for sport to have
beneficial outcomes?’ must be asked more often”.
Mechanisms, processes, networks and ‘purposive action’
Process and theory-based design and evaluation
It’s more than a game
Beyond participation
Inputs ‘Research free zone’
Outputs
Sporting inclusion
Traditional SD: Equity
Sporting Outcomes
Skills, rules, ethics
Theory of change
Intermediate impacts
Personal/social development/attitudes
Theory of change
Plus sport Intermediate
Sport outcomesSport plus
Behaviour
Theory of change
Strategic outcomes
Community regeneration/social capital
Conflict resolution
Peer leaders and role models
Anything you can do
Traditional SD: leaders/coaches as inputs
Sport-in-development: outputs ‘responsible citizens inputs
• Role models: embedded; ‘relevant’; no social distance
• Social learning/self-efficacy theory [Bandura]
Perceived similarity to learner (especially for females)
Self-efficacy expectation : capable
Outcome expectancy: desirable
HIV/AIDS; behavioural models; sportSocial Climate and Self-Efficacy
Motivational
Climate
Mastery Performance
Effort & Important Cooperative Intra-team Unequal Punishment of
improvement role learning rivalry recognition mistakesA Model /Theory of Sport, HIV/AIDS and Sexual Behaviour Change
Develop sporting/social skills
Develop sporting/ethical attitudes
Gender equity attitudes/behaviour
Develop self-efficacy/confidence
HIV/AIDS information [KAO/didactic]
Self-esteem [mostly peer leaders?]
Reduced risk-taking sexual behaviour
Self-efficacy + attitudes + self-esteem+ information
changed sexual behaviour
…maybeTBE : improving the menu
• Programme theories/logic
• Theories of change/assumptions Basis for M&E
• Programme design
• What are causes and scope of problems to be addressed?
• Sufficient conditions outcomes?
• Intermediate outcomes changed behaviours?
Research/theoryWhat have you assumed about the participants?
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scores
15 and 25: normal range
Below 15: low self-esteem
EMIMA
20
15
15
13 13
Number
11 11
10 9
8
7
6
5 5
5 4 4
1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Rosenberg score
KCCC
15
15
12
Number
10
10
8
6
5
5
1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Rosenberg scoreRailway Children
20
15
N um ber
10
5
5 4 4 4
3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Rosenberg scorePerceived Self-efficacy
“If I can’t do a job first time, I keep on trying until I can”
EMIMA
25 24
20 18
Number
15 13
10
10 9 9
8 8
5 3 3 4
2
0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Self-efficacy score
Kid's League
40 37
35
30
Number
25 22
20 17
18
15
10
10
4
5
1 1 1
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Self-efficacy scoreMagic Bus: Perceived Self-efficacy
10
8
6
Nu m ber
5 5
4
4
3
2 2 2 2 2
2
1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30Magic Bus
% of total available score
100
90
83
80 75
70
64
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Initiative Effort PersistenceDisplacement of scope Micro individual impacts [self-confidence/self-esteem/human capital] Meso organisational/community [social capital; bridging divides] Macro ‘development’
Circuses and bread Beware of the sports evangelists
Putting the right foot forward
‘complex systems thrust amidst complex systems’
‘We mount limited-focus programs to cope with broad-gauge
problems. We devote limited resources to long-standing and
stubborn problems. Above all we concentrate attention on changing
the attitudes and behaviour of target groups without concomitant
attention to the institutional structures and social arrangements
that tend to keep them “target groups”’. Weiss (1993)
Paradox of empowerment
O Mwaanga
Empowerment Through Women’s Football‘You almost never have to show you’ve prevented any infections. You can be judged a success for just doing what you said you were going to do, like train some nursesA.. or give leaflets to 400 out of the nation’s 160,000 drug injectors’ ‘we do not evaluate enough and so we invite people to do research into things like sport and development, sport and peace. We need to prove what we say that we do.’ Johann Koss, President of Right to Play ‘doing honest analysis that would lead to programme improvement is a glorious way to be hated by just about everyone’
Sport-for-development “Pessimism of the intellect Optimism of the will” Prof Fred Coalter University of Stirling
Self-esteem
Hierarchical and multidimensional model
Social Academic Role(s) ?
acceptance self-concept Global self esteem competence
Importance filter
Self-efficacy
Physical self-efficacy
Importance filter
Sports Perceived Physical Body
competence strength condition Attractiveness
Source: K Fox (1990)Relationship between strategy and tactics?
• Programmes are theories Logic models
• Outline core theories: how is programme supposed to work?
• Interrogate: is basic plan sound/plausible/practical/valid?
Reveal assumptions ‘Causes and ‘cures’
Illustrate connections
Programme components/expected outcomes
‘sufficient conditions’
Basis for theory-based evaluation
Strengthen claims for causality
Estimate difficult-to-measure programme effects
‘on the balance of probability’A new aid paradigm?
Top down economic aid: economic capital
Governance
Civil society
Culture
Human capital
Social capital
NGOsM&E as development • Process-led, theory-based participatory M&E • Decision-makers question/analyse assumptions/expectations • Context: political, cultural, economic, institutional • Engages stakeholders in planning/monitoring process • Better understanding, design, implementation of programmes • Realistic outcomes The over-arching goal for evaluation in international development is to foster a transparent, inquisitive and self-critical organisational cultureAso we can learn to do better DFID
Sources of perceived self - efficacy
People's beliefs about their capabilities to influence events that affect
their lives.
“If I can’t do a job first time, I keep on trying until I can”
VERBAL
PERSUASION
PERFORMANCE
SELF-
EFFICACY
IMITATION &
MODELING
PHYSIOLOGICAL
AROUSALIt’s not what you doAA
‘there is a need to assemble proof, to go beyond what is mostly anecdotal
evidence to monitor and evaluate the impact of sport in development
programmes’ UNICEF, 2006
‘we do not evaluate enough and so we invite people to do research
into things like sport and development, sport and peace. We need to
prove what we say that we do.’ Johann Koss, President of Right to Play
Patrikson (1998)
“ Sport, like most activities, is not a priori good or bad, but has the
potential of producing both positive or negative outcomes.
Questions like ‘what conditions are necessary for sport to have
beneficial outcomes?’ must be asked more often”.You can also read
