dissertation - kola adeosun
Post on 21-Feb-2017
111 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
I Kola Adeosun
Southampton Solent University
FACULTY OF BUSINESS, SPORT AND ENTERPRISE - (FBSE)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Sport and Development at Southampton Solent University.
Supervisor: Dr. Oscar Mwaanga
Date of Presentation: August 2015
Word Count: 20834
MA Sport and Development
2015
Kola Adeosun
"Conceptualising the Discourse of Development
amongst Experts within Sport-for-Development and
Peace"
II Kola Adeosun
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank all the participants who were involved in this
study. Their willingness, encouragement and words of wisdom certainly helped
formulate and develop this piece of work into what it is. These individuals are true
inspirations in their respective expertise and their work in this all together
challenging field of Sport-for-Development and Peace continues to inspire and
stimulate intellectual understanding.
Secondly, to my sister-in-law, ‘Victoria Adeosun’, who made time for me and
assisted thoroughly in the completion of this lengthy prolix, I say thank you.
Thirdly, to whoever else has encouraged and motivated me along the way, I cannot
thank you enough for the words of support which made the difference in
completing this thesis.
Last but not least, to my supervisor, ‘Dr Oscar Mwaanga’ firstly thank you for the
opportunity to work with you, your work in the field of SDP and social
entrepreneurship is both innovative and definitive and secondly thank you for your
continual guidance in this expansive topic area. Without your knowledge,
leadership and friendship, the completion of this thesis would not have been
possible and I hope the knowledge that comes from this honour’s you.
III Kola Adeosun
DECLARATION
I can confirm that this thesis is my own work; and all sources used have been
appropriately referenced and any other material used has been appropriately
detailed in the text or Appendix.
IV Kola Adeosun
ABSTRACT
Within the field of Sport-for-Development and Peace, the meaning and practice of
development is often assumed and with this, there is a general consensus of what
it means to develop in SDP. However the term development in social science is
without a uniform definition and at the basic level some would attribute
development to some facets of change or improvement to be achieved through
sport. In truth though, the realities of SDP, especially in the global south is that
much of the improvements or changes predicted have either been minute or
ceased to happen all together. Therefore this study sought to question experts of
SDP at the frontline of development conceptualisation to find out their meaning
and practice of development. Through semi-structured interviews the perspectives
of SDP experts (N = 6), including one female and five males, who have all been
actively in involved with SDP as academics for a minimum period of eight years
were brought to the fore. The adoption of reflexive bracketing allowed the study
to maintain a largely un-biased position, so that experts could effectively
articulate their conceptualisations. The results suggest a largely participatory
conceptualisation to development amongst experts but suggests a heavily
programme orientated notion to their practices bringing issues of power and
knowledge which contradicts development conceptualisations. Results further
highlights issues with short-termism of SDP programmes and the overemphasis
placed on sport as a development tool. Lastly, the results provide insights into how
experts either focus on individuals or communities in the participatory
conceptualisations.
To conclude the study proposes that SDP experts should consider their engagement
with projects and whether this effectively allows participation to occur. Likewise,
SDP research should consider longitudinal based research approaches to reduce the
short-termism currently associated with SDP.
V Kola Adeosun
CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures VIII
List pf Acronyms IX
1. Chapter One - Introduction Pg. 1
1.1. SDP - Historical Perspective and Contemporary Challenges Pg. 2
1.2. Rationale of the Study Pg. 5
1.3. Study Aims and Research Objectives Pg. 8
1.4. Scope of Study Pg. 8
1.5. Researcher's Biographical Positioning Pg. 9
1.6. Personal Motivations Pg. 11
1.7. Outline of Chapters to Follow Pg. 12
2. Chapter Two - Literature Review Pg. 14
2.1. Sport Pg. 15
2.2. Development Pg. 18
2.2.1. International Development Pg. 20
2.2.2. Participatory Development Pg. 22
2.2.3. Development Concluded Pg. 25
2.3. Discourse of Eurocentrism within SDP Pg. 26
2.4. Power and SDP Pg. 29
2.6. Chapter Summary Pg. 35
3. Chapter Three - Methodology Pg. 36
3.1. Reflexive Bracketing Pg. 36
3.2. Ontology Pg. 38
3.3. Epistemology Pg. 39
3.4. Methodological Foundations Pg. 39
VI Kola Adeosun
3.5. Qualitative & Quantitative Methods Pg. 42
3.6. Methods Pg. 43
3.6.1. Source of Data Collection: Semi-Structured Interviews Pg. 44
3.6.2. The Delphi Technique Pg. 45
3.2.6.1. Sampling Pg. 46
3.6.3. The Process Pg. 47
3.6.4. Approach to Data Analysis Pg. 48
3.7. Reliability and Validity Pg. 49
3.8. Ethical Considerations Pg. 50
3.9. Chapter Summary Pg. 51
4. Chapter Four - Results and Discussion Pg. 52
4.1. Project-Based Development Pg. 53
4.2. Sport - Facing Reality Pg. 58
4.3. Negotiating Power Pg. 63
4.4. Individual Vs Community Focus Pg. 67
4.5. Chapter Conclusion Pg. 71
5. Chapter Five - Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations Pg. 73
5.1. Summary of Key Findings Pg. 74
5.1.1. Looking Towards Self Sustenance in SDP Pg. 74
5.1.2. Building Long Term Relationships Pg. 76
5.2. Benefits and Limitations Pg. 77
5.2.1. Future Recommendations Pg. 78
5.3. Review of Researchers Own Learning Pg. 80
6. Chapter Six - References Pg. 82
7. Chapter Seven - Appendix Pg. 118
Appendix 7.1. Letter of Introduction Pg. 119
VII Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.2. List of Millennium Development Goals Pg. 120
Appendix 7.3. Reflexive Journal Pg. 121
Appendix 7.4. Informed Consent Form Pg. 123
Appendix 7.5. Semi-Structured Interview Template Pg. 125
Appendix 7.6. Differences in Qualitative and Quantitative Research Pg. 128
Appendix 7.7. The Delphi Qualifying Criteria Pg. 129
Appendix 7.8. Individual Participant Attributes Pg. 130
Appendix 7.9. Comparison of Common Research Philosophies Pg. 131
Appendix 7.10. Non-Probability Sampling Techniques Pg. 132
Appendix 7.11. Ethics Release Form Pg. 133
VIII Kola Adeosun
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
1.0. Delineating 'Power Over and Power To' Pg. 34
IX Kola Adeosun
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CPP Critical Participatory Paradigm
FIFA Fédération Internationale de Football Association
IMF International Monetary Fund
IOC International Olympic Committee
IYDTP International Year of Development Through Sport
KAO Kicking Aids Out
MGD's Millennium Development Goals
MYSA Mathare Youth Sport Association
P/P Projects and/or Programmes
SDP Sport for Development and Peace
SSA Sub-Saharan African
UN United Nations
1 Kola Adeosun
1. Chapter One – Introduction
"When psychologists speak of the development of intelligence, mathematicians of the development
of an equation or photographers of the development of a film, the sense they give to the word
'development’ is clear enough. Its definition is shared by everyone working in those areas. The
situation is quite different, however, when it comes to the use of the word in ordinary language to
denote either a state or a process associated with such concepts as material well-being, progress,
social justice, economic growth, personal blossoming, or even ecological equilibrium". Rist (2014 Pg.
8)
Immediately, a cursory glance at the quote above should highlight that the
meaning and terminology of the word development in social science is entangled in
a semantic web of meanings pertaining to growth, progress and advancement,
(Omar 2012). One understanding of the term comes from Esteva (1992) who
suggest 'development' implies a favourable change, from inferior to superior, a
step from poor to rich. However who determines this 'richness' or the facets of a
favourable change? How is development conceptualised to achieve such favourable
changes? How do the frameworks of discourse and power shape development
conceptualisation? How does the vehicle of sport aid towards the destination of
developed? These are some of the questions this thesis will look to answer and in
this bid the thesis will interview expert academics (Appendix 7.7. details what
determines an expert) within the field of Sport-for-Development and Peace (SDP
hereafter). As such the study is appropriately entitled; “Conceptualising the
Discourse of Development amongst Experts within Sport-For-Development and
Peace” and the rationale of the topic is discussed in relation to three main themes
including: the meaning and conceptualisation of development within SDP, the
effect of discourse on the creation and transfer of knowledge and the covert
2 Kola Adeosun
power relations surrounding the global north and global south1. At first though, a
historical context of development through sport must be given to make sense of
contemporary conceptualisations.
1.1. SDP - Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Challenges
The historical perception of 'development assistance' points to a long history of
interventions through sport, (Levermore & Beacom 2009). In the particular
context, the development assistance of sport was seen as a reform for the
historically negative ‘opinion’ shown by early missionaries and scholars towards
indigenous sport, (Levermore & Beacom 2009). Indeed Heinemann (1993) contends
that early ‘developmentalist's’ disregarded traditional sport such as dancing as
improper and represented too much the mythologies and legends often associated
with traditional communities. As with contemporary SDP2, traditional sport-
development assistance was widely influenced by the imperialistic and
paternalistic relationship between the coloniser and the colonised, (Levermore &
Beacom 2009). Thus the idea of such development assistance was ingrained within
particular Eurocentric discourses that attempted to replace supposed ‘barbaric’
indigenous customs with believed ‘civilising’ notions through sport, ignoring the
complex nature of individuals, society’s and beliefs, (Mangan 2006). As such
contemporary SDP is born out of this historical ideological thinking, and whilst the
antecedents of SDP are traceable back to more antiquated society's where global
northern individuals openly dismissed global southern ways of knowing, (Levermore
1 1 The binary of Global North and Global South is ‘of course, geographically inaccurate and too generalised to encompass the complexities within and between nations, but it is perhaps the least problematic means of distinguishing between relatively wealthy countries and continents [Europe] and relatively poorer ones [Africa]’(McEwan, 2008, pp. 13-14) 2 This study uses the term Sport-for-Development and Peace or SDP as an intentional representation of sport, physical activity and play as a feasible, practical efficient tool to contribute to development and peace goals, (Dudfield 2014). More terms have been used including and not limited to sport-for-development, sport and development and development-through-sport, (Kidd 2008; Levermore 2008; Darnell 2007).
3 Kola Adeosun
2008a), modern SDP as an academic field of study has only become prominent
within the last two decades, (Mwaanga 2012). Proof of which is evident in the
paucity of literature on SDP prior to the early 90's, (Giulianotti 2012; 2011; Read &
Bingham 2008). Even though sport was recognised as a fundamental right as early
as 1959 by the international community, (Beutler 2008). Indeed the SDP movement
aligns with the United Nations (UN hereafter) Millennium Development Goals
(MGD’s hereafter) (Appendix 7.2.) and sport is seen as a spear head to addressing
these contemporary global development challenges, (Mwaanga 2013[Cited in
Hylton 2013]; Mwaanga 2012; Levermore 2008a). However at the time of writing
this thesis currently a decade and a half on from the publication of these global
development goals, in which the UN has developed and supported a plethora of
sport-for-development programmes to achieving such goals, (Beutler 2008),
absolute poverty remains endemic in many parts of the world especially within the
global south, showing SDP's minimal capabilities, (Easterly 2007; Sachs 2006; Black
2002).
This, because as Mwaanga (2012) argues that the majority of UN SDP initiatives are
developed within two offices (Geneva and New York), situated in the northern
hemisphere but are then implemented in the global south, confirming clearly the
Eurocentric discourse of SDP, a common contemporary challenge, embedded
within deep rooted issues of power and knowledge. Even though some local
community programmes might have been created by indigenous practitioners,
developing with it collective and communal values, this Eurocentric discourse
allows stakeholders (academics, corporations, practitioners) to influence the
thinking, direction and implementation of such programmes, (Mwaanga & Banda
2014). Consequently displaying the donor-recipient relationship evident within the
4 Kola Adeosun
contemporary SDP movement characterised wholly in the one-directional flow of
knowledge, people, values, ideologies and practices, (Mwaanga & Banda 2014).
Therefore the term ‘development’ in social science is rhetoric, a deception, an
abuse of power, indeed development is a phenomenon, (Rist 2014; Rossi 2004). A
phenomenal process that implies an inherently positive outcome however
development is both a process and a creator, because development can create its
equal opposite, underdevelopment, which is rarely mentioned, (Mwaanga 2012). In
truth how can one write that the cure (development) is also perhaps the ill
(underdevelopment), (Rist 2014), as such the global south resides in a continual
state of developing, because underdevelopment remains prominent within
development but is not critically addressed, (Mwaanga 2012). Indeed the
difference between developing and developed relies traditionally on northern
view-points, thus the parameters of development within SDP are underpinned by
hegemonic discourses inclined to empower some and disempower others,
(Mwaanga 2012; Black 2010). With that said the importance of 'development' is
evident in the contemporary global community, none more so than the UN who, as
said have outlined their MGD’s to be globally pursued through sport. Certainly the
belief that sport can contribute to such development goals led 2005 to be declared
as the international year of development through sport (IYDTP 2005 hereafter),
(Mwaanga 2013[Cited in Hylton 2013]); Gilbert & Bennett 2012; Beutler 2008;
Levermore 2008a; Easterly 2007). Undeniably the connection of sport to achieving
the MDG's has cemented the claims that SDP can achieve social change. Such
claims often with anecdotal evidence of singular testimonials and emotional
pictures in which these goals have been achieved have become the currency of
5 Kola Adeosun
sport and of course the SDP movement, (Donnelly et al. 2011). Even if sport did
achieve, questions have to be asked such as sport in what form and whose sport?
Really, traditional western sports implemented in the global south comes with a
misguided benevolence which allows manifestations of power to occur, (Darnell
2012). Therefore sport has its limitations and sport needs to be implanted in much
broader policies and processes to actually effect development, (Coalter
2009)[Cited in Levermore & Beacom 2009]. Though individuals that favour the use
of sport are quick to points to its qualities, (Levermore 2008a) but sport within the
realm of development has been criticised for its masculine disposition born from
colonial thinking reinventing contemporary SDP within the realms of neo-
colonialism, (Darnell & Hayhurst 2012; Bale & Cronin 2003).
1.2. Rationale of the Study
As discussed contemporary SDP has several challenges and there is a growing form
of realistic criticism as to whether SDP can actually invoke authentic development.
Furthermore a major critique of SDP, as attested to by the current and growing
literature is how knowledge is created within SDP and by such tokens who defines
development within the field. Indeed Mwaanga & Banda (2014); Coalter (2013);
Darnell (2012); Mwaanga (2012); Spaaij (2011); Mwaanga (2010); Keim (2006) (and
many others) all acknowledge the point that in the SDP field, the majority of
literature is published in the global north, even though the majority of projects
6 Kola Adeosun
run in the global south3. Consequently research endeavours reach their conclusions
based on northern ideological standpoints, while viewing the global south as
stereotypically inferior or incapable, hereby reproducing the suppressive
dispositions of neo-colonialism, the "cultural legacy of colonialism" (Mwaanga 2012
pg. 22). As a result, people subject to SDP, under this neo-colonial influence are
not the ones deciding the components of their progress, (Mwaanga 2012). As a
result the concept of development within SDP is created in one part of the world
and implemented in another owing to the interpretations of the constructor. Due
to this global northern interpretation development is assumed to be good, a noble
cause which commands universal acceptance, but a cause constructed within a
particular discursive culture and history which does not fully appreciate the
complexities of 'other' individuals and communities leading again to the
possibilities of underdevelopment, (Rist 2014).
At this point, it should be noted that this examinations aim is not to discredit
global northern ideas or philosophies but to highlight the continual risks of basing
the practice of SDP on any one viewpoint and neglecting others, (Mwaanga
2013[Cited in Hylton 2013]). Certainly within SDP, northern academics themselves
have begun to question their development interventions which are based on
northern ethnocentric concepts circulated by foreign organisations for SDP end
users in developing nations, (Mwaanga & Banda 2014; Kay 2011; Black 2010;
Darnell 2010; 2007). As such the rationale for this study as mentioned in the
3 “As applied in this thesis the ―Global South is not just another name for the "South" or "the developing world." The term
denotes a community of people at different geographical locations who experience a common set of problems – problems
which emanate, by and large, from deep inequities of power within and between nations” (Mwaanga 2012 Pg. 16).
7 Kola Adeosun
introduction is based on three main concepts which influence SDP and are further
detailed below:
- The idea and concept of ‘development’ is one without a simple definition
and we may comment at length about the meanings of such definitions and
their suppositions (Rist 2014), but rather it is more prudent to analyse and
question those at the forefront of the ‘development’ process within SDP to
understand their conceptualisations of development, and how sport
contributes to this process, as is this study’s aim.
- Even though widely accepted that global southern ways of knowing and
knowledge is imperative to the ‘development’ process, (Mwaanga 2012;
Spaaij & Jeanes 2012), it is a curious case that in an age where knowledge
plays a more prominent role in society than at any former time, there has
not been an increase of influence or recognition for those that possess the
new knowledge, (Lukes 1986). However within SDP global northern
knowledge is publicised as truth allowing the north, power to alter, shape
and mould SDP.
- Michel Foucault has argued that discourses shape our social world and as
such SDP as an approach to development remains strongly shaped by
western discourses, which further legitimises northern knowledge and
corrupts social reality at the point of view of the Doxa, as such discourse
will be further analysed, (Elder-Vass 2008; Rossi 2004; Kothari & Minogue
2002).
8 Kola Adeosun
1.3. Study Aims and Research Objectives
The present thesis is described as a qualitative research study, based on the nature
and methods used and the main study aim; is to examine the conceptualisation of
development amongst chosen SDP theorists.
Within this aim lie three main objectives detailed below:
- To investigate the meaning and practice of development, through the
conceptualisation of 'development' experts within SDP.
- To explore the relationship of power and discourse and how it influences the
creation and transfer of knowledge within SDP.
- To identify and examine the dominating notions of development and how
they play out in SDP.
1.4. Scope of Study
Whilst the study has detailed its rationale and aims, to build on these thoughts and
objectives a scope of the study is given to outline the margins in which the
research will operate. In the broadest sense, four distinct philosophical,
theoretical and socio-political discourses guide the critiques of the study to varying
degrees, (Darnell 2012). The previous sections have briefly touched upon the
notions of uneven power relations within SDP, the Eurocentric ideologies which
9 Kola Adeosun
biases knowledge transfer and the vague and ultimately western definitions of
development and sport. Each of these discourses contributes to the sociological
examination of SDP, (Darnell 2012). Consequently this study will further examine
power, discourse, the meaning of development and sport within the literature,
because they have a long-standing tradition in the studies of international
development, and they all, to some extent contribute to the construction of
development thinking within global SDP, (Darnell 2012). Though Darnell (2012) has
further argued for other discourses such as Gramscian hegemony or post-colonial
theory, this study stays within the remits of the four frameworks mentioned above,
as they make a systematic and methodical contribution to the analytical focal
point and rationale of the study, (Darnell 2012). Further to this the study seeks to
make a contribution to the growing development literature with the hope of
enhancing existing knowledge for practitioners, policy-makers and research
literature.
1.5. Researcher's Biographical Positioning
The challenge within social research has been the inability for researchers to avoid
subjective biases and presumptions when conducting research, (Denzin & Lincoln
2011; Gomm 2008). Indeed Mwaanga & Adeosun (in Press) detail that within SDP
there is a naivety of researchers, were we (the global north) neglect or deny to
subjectively critique our biographical background. Undeniably, this reluctance to
emancipate ourselves severely hinders the possibility of emancipating others
through our research. As a result this section exposes the researcher’s biographical
background, highlighting possible subjective biases that may arise and defines
10 Kola Adeosun
reflexivity and its advantages in reducing subjective biases within social research,
(Mwaanga 2012).
Even though the researcher is classified as a ‘black British’ male whose heritage is
of sub-Saharan African (SSA hereafter) descent, the researcher’s upbringing has
been situated mainly within the global north, therefore there is a danger that the
researcher’s world-views will be one-sided through beliefs and values formed in
western society. Indeed Kidd (2008) has argued that young SDP minded activists
who have little practical experience within the field maybe more akin to the
orthodoxy of neo-liberal and neo-colonial development notions. The researcher
however would argue, that their personal, political, social and communal values
are individualistic, but however it is still important to recognise the surrounding
western culture and the researcher’s own pro-longed exposure in that culture.
Though, certainly such understanding is only possible through the mirror of self-
reflexivity, (Darnell 2012).
Consequently those of ‘us’ situated in the global north, who train, work and study
in development should be attentive to the need to critically re-assess our own
development understandings, as well as our involvement (directly or indirectly) in
conditions of poverty and separation in the global south, (Black 2010). As such
reflexivity, urges the researcher to continually question their biographical make-up
in research process and policy development, breaking down pillars of positivistic
knowledge, allowing the researcher to acknowledge their contribution as an
outsider, (Mwaanga 2012; Jootun, McGhee & Marland 2009; Morrow 2005; May &
Pope 1995). The advantage of this reflexivity is that it functions as an instrument
11 Kola Adeosun
to view SDP from an alternate paradigm reminding the researcher to factor in their
backgrounds, allowing them to attain the knowledge of reality and deconstruct the
current processes at hand, (Mwaanga 2012). Thus the researcher’s position and
knowledge creation is accepted as one originating from the global north because
the researcher is the actor in the construction of knowledge within the current
study, (Jootun, McGhee & Marland 2009; Walter 2009).
1.6. Personal Motivations
The researcher's personal motivations in choosing the particular study circulate
mainly around three subjective factors. Firstly, the researcher's heritage
originating from the global south has a strong influence on the researcher's
motivation to conduct the present study.
Secondly, the researcher has a specific interest in development studies, not just
within SSA but globally. Indeed to agree with Easterly's (2007) critique that while
the north has set a quest to save the poor, it is not only worrying but also
discouraging that northern society has developed more varied and efficient ideas
and designs for personal entertainment for example, than the last fifty years of
'serious' development studies and scholars have been able to come up with.
Therefore almost a billion people live in poverty and whilst the number continually
rises the cyclical process of development continues and fifty years of technocratic
development initiatives have either had very little success or have continued and
contributed to growing poverty, (Easterly 2013; 2007). Consequently the
12 Kola Adeosun
researcher seeks in Easterly's (2007) words to become a 'searcher' looking outside
of conventional and orthodox methods to understand and negotiate development.
Finally, the researcher has a key interest in sport and the SDP movement, and
accepts the widely held notion that sport can contribute to the development
process, (Levermore & Beacom 2012; Lindsey & Banda 2011; Mwaanga 2010;
Levermore 2008b; Beutler 2008). Despite this SDP as a development approach has
been continually questioned for its many discourses, (Mwaanga 2013[Cited in
Hylton 2013]) some of which have been mentioned, nevertheless SDP is continually
written about (positively and negatively) and is still strongly advocated by some
global northern individuals and organisations. Though those writing about SDP have
rarely been questioned and as such the researcher uses the study as a platform to
question those who develop knowledge within SDP initiatives.
1.7. Outline of Chapters to Follow
In summary this chapter has attempted to outline the research context, through
presenting the current landscape of SDP, from its historical perspectives to its
contemporary views, outlining key discourses which will be further scrutinised in
the research process.
In the following chapters the concept of development within SDP will be further
explored, highlighting the unique research approach of the present study. The
review of literature chapter includes a comprehensive and critical discussion of the
four discourses of SDP identified earlier, highlighting any further relevant issues
13 Kola Adeosun
within the literature. The methodology chapter presents the process of selecting
particular methods, whilst highlighting the ontological and epistemological position
of the study detailing justifications for its methodological foundations. Finally the
closing chapters present data from interviews and research findings are analysed
with crucial areas presented within the discussion chapter. The final chapters are
concerned with summarising the key findings and detailing the limitations and
reflections of the study. Moreover the closing chapter's presents areas to further
continue the current area of research.
14 Kola Adeosun
2. Chapter Two - Literature Review
A literature review is presented to not only identify gaps in the knowledge area
but to also add credibility to the research design of a project, (Armour &
Macdonald 2012; Gratton & Jones 2010; Walliman 2005). The reader in this chapter
is provided with insights into this unique research area that builds towards
understanding the conceptualisation of development by SDP experts. This chapter
engages with relevant discourses and details how they influence the process of
development within SDP. It is important to consolidate relevant knowledge areas
within one body of literature, to ensure that any future areas of knowledge are
developed through and among existing knowledge, (Armour & Macdonald 2012;
Biggam 2011; Long 2007). Therefore the literature review serves as a useful tool to
critique and summarise key areas, (Silverman 2013, Denzin & Lincoln 2011).
This chapter begins its critique by detailing the nature of sport within SDP, leading
to a thorough conceptualisation of 'development' and its perceptions in the field of
SDP. Next, the Eurocentric discourse of SDP is unveiled creating a basis for a
discussion regarding the expressions of power.
15 Kola Adeosun
2.1. Sport
Sport similar to development has wide ranging definitions, indeed Gilbert &
Bennett (2012), highlight the difficulty in defining sport, but given the evangelistic
nature of sport, it is seen as the singular tool to achieving development objectives,
(Adams & Harris 2014; Darnell 2012; Mwaanga 2010; Hylton et al. 2001). That
being said this study presents two definitions of sport, firstly some academics focus
sport as a form of physical activity, organised and requiring skill, (Coakley 2001).
Alternatively others suggest sport as a form of play, social interactions,
recreational activity that contributes to physical activity, (United Nations 2014a).
Both definitions recognise sport in one form or another but the second emphasises
sport as a holistic tool more akin to the nature of development. However given the
heterogeneous nature of SDP, adopting any one definition will have implications on
development practice, (Mwaanga 2012). Thus the question is continually raised as
to whether the 'organisation of and the participation in' sport positively contributes
to upward social mobility in regions which the world bank deems as low income
communities, commonly referred to as the global south, (Spaaij 2011). Whilst for
the majority of people, sport and leisure activities form an integral part of daily
life whether as participants or spectators (Keim 2006; Jarvie & Maguire 1994), the
perception of sport within SDP must be understood before understanding how and
if it can contribute to development, (Keim 2006). Therefore the study and
practical applications of SDP require an essential and critical understanding of
sport and development outcomes through sport, (Darnell 2012).
16 Kola Adeosun
Although widely accepted that sport can build bridges and get a message to people
in a way politicians/governments cannot, because sport is a cultural trend,
(Schulenkorf, Sugden & Burdsey 2014; Amusa, Toriola & Goon 2013; Mwaaga 2012;
Spaaij & Jeanes 2012; Houlihan, Nicholson & Hoye 2010; Beutler 2008; Hylton &
Bramham 2008; Keim 2006; Coakley 2003; Dzathor 2003; Frey & Eitzen 1991).
Sport, however for the purposes of development still needs to be considered in a
more nuanced manner, evaluated relative to the society and conditions it is
implemented and considered along with other engines of development, certainly
sport needs to be demystified, demythologised and depoliticised, (Black 2010;
Levermore 2008a; Coalter 2007). For example within the study of race and racism,
sport plays a significant role, (Darnell 2012). Indeed racism is a fact of life that
needs to be reconciled and/or negotiated in encounters with people from different
groups, because race is an artifice, a machinery of power within discourses of
global politics that condemns one form of humanity to the benefit of another's
development, (Arat-Koc 2010). However the relatively benevolent and benign
politics of sport as a tool of development makes such racial issues difficult to
extricate, therefore associating sport as a site for the creation and preservation of
socio-political power, (Darnell 2012; Darnell 2007). Consequently as Black (2010)
details that no serious scholar would defend the thought that sport is completely
apolitical or that sport is simply the panacea to the many global development
issues now present, (Adams & Harris 2014; Mwaanga 2012; Levermore 2008b). In
truth 'sport' can exhibit some of the worst of human traits such as discrimination,
gamesmanship, cheating, excessive nationalism, violence and corruption, (Amusa,
Toriola & Goon 2013; Levermore 2008a). This last point being proved true in the
International Federation of Football Association (FIFA hereafter) the highest
17 Kola Adeosun
governing body in football facing confirmed allegations of corruption, bribery and
fraud. A further reason as to why many traditional 'developmentalists' feel
somewhat divided by the prospects of sport as a tool for development, (Levermore
2008a).
Nonetheless, for many sport is continually encouraged because it develops unique
characteristics and proper values which are expected to be duplicated in everyday
society, (Frey & Eitzen 1991). However the contribution of sport to encouraging
positive development has been idealistic rather than realistic, in reality
contemporary 'sport' is more like a 'prison of measured time', (Brohm 1978). Were
modern 'sport' and its definitions are born out of northern capitalist outlooks and
because of this, once implemented in the south restricts and constrains the
freedom of choice for global southern people, acting as an overwhelming form of
power, (Cashmore 2010; Stewart 1989). As mentioned previously for example,
early developmentalist's disregarded traditional forms of activity such as dancing,
but today, modern SDP programmes have not increased the freedom of choice,
sport in its inherently western form is still presented in local communities as the
tool for development, with speeches such as 'sport is a global language' attached,
(Beutler 2008). Whereas, at the inception of sport programmes aimed at
development, questions should be asked, such as what are the local sports? How do
experts working with sport see its role in development? What do local communities
understand by sport and how does it relate to development? Though accepted that
all of these questions cannot be answered within the remits of this study,
answering one, may increase the understanding of sport within the wider
18 Kola Adeosun
development and social science literature and in turn increase traditional
'developmentalists' trust in sport.
2.2. Development
Sport and development are inextricably linked, as the idea of development within
SDP is not possible without sport. Undeniably they are viewed linearly as the tool
(sport) and the outcome (development), (Hylton et al. 2001). That being said, the
genesis of modern 'developmentalism' began with the inaugural presidential speech
of Harry S. Truman in 1949 who urged the ‘developed’, democratic and northern
nations to commit to improving the worlds 'underdeveloped' areas, (Rist 2014;
Darnell 2010b; Taylor et al. 1996). This spurred the first wave of global
development projects shrouded with modernist logic, viewing all members of the
developing world as homogenous, influenced by positivist social science, (Darnell
2010b; Sylvester 1999). Contemporarily, Black (2010) provides a simple yet
profound definition of development as an organised intervention for a standard of
improvement; but two key things are important from this definition. Firstly
‘development’ is noted as an intervention and secondly what constitutes
'improvement' is dependent on a global northern interpretation, (Black 2010).
Therefore development is in itself contested territory and a plurality which should
be constantly negotiated and questioned, (Kothari & Minogue 2002; Hylton et al.
2001). As such Mwaanga (2012) adeptly asks the questions, who is developing?
What is development and how do we measure it? These questions are difficult to
answer as 'development' is a term without an ontological reality, but instead a
'collective delusion' used by superior organisations, people and nations residing
19 Kola Adeosun
within the core countries to maintain their dominating influence on those in the
periphery, (Rist 2014; Easterly 2013; Nederveen-Pieterse 2010; Rossi 2004; Parfitt
2002; Grillo & Stirrat 1997). As mentioned, while the aim of this narrative is not to
simply discredit the intentions of 'developmentalists' as tyrannical or to vilify the
term 'development', the aim is to promote a better understanding of the term and
its principles for SDP contextualisation, through its deconstruction.
Indeed there is a general belief within those that work, advocate and study in
development that inaction is not an option but actions follow understanding and
principles, and actions based on the wrong assumptions simply adds to the process
of 'creative destruction' and can equally contribute to the tragic problems of global
poverty, (Easterly 2013; Black 2010). For example Easterly (2007) references how
in the mid 1980's musicians gathered together to attack world poverty through a
mass musical festival, which looked at raising awareness but more importantly
looked at raising funds to escape poverty. Though a noble and justified cause,
without full understanding and appreciation of the processes and intricacies of
global poverty, this festival did little more than promote a seemingly depraved and
helpless people of the south. Therefore, poverty is viewed simply as a lack of
economic capacity, in return building a consensus that development should be
simply about economic growth and as such SDP is based on this consensus.
Certainly economic development is important for greater social change, (Easterly
2007), along with other approaches of development such as sustainable
development, social development and political development, (Hylton et al. 2001).
With that said however, this narrative focuses its attention on the practice of
development and within this context, the practice of development work amongst
20 Kola Adeosun
experts is narrowed into two broad frames of reference, international
development and participatory development, (Easterly 2013). International
development ideology is chosen because it represents the early ideals of
development referenced as the 'big push' (Easterly 2007) and focused on
technocratic methods requiring nations to climb the universal ladder of Walt
Rostow's five step principles of development, (Taylor et al. 1996). In the wake of
criticism for such approaches, participatory development arose as more of an
alternative with the pragmatic realisation that perhaps development would work
best with the inclusion of localised people in development projects, (Mcgee 2002).
As such these two approaches are now explained in greater detail.
2.2.1. International Development
Firstly international development is concerned with the material and moral
improvement of people around the world, built on the cornerstones of
modernisation and neo-liberal philosophies, where the global north sees its
knowledge as ultimate in the development process, a preconception which has
formed much of international development policy for the last half century,
(McMichael 2010; Rist 2002). Therefore international development practice can be
understood as the conventional approach to development, which concerns itself
definitively with economic gain in one form or another as the ultimate measure of
development success, (Easterly 2013). As a result, critically deconstructing the
concept of international development often leads to the distortion and
destabilisation of development studies, (Schuurman 1993). This is because
'international development' in its concepts represents the universal (northern)
21 Kola Adeosun
meaning of what it means to be developed, (Levermore & Beacom 2009). This
unitary understanding of development as said is born out of the modernist thinking
of Walt Rostow who assumed a process of economic growth would allow societies
to move from stages of underdevelopment to development, (Levermore & Beacom
2009; Taylor et al. 1996). Neo-liberalism, due to its focus on free market
economics shares many of the characteristics of the modernist thinking and whilst
severely criticised for what Hirschman (1981) called the 'monoeconomics' of
orthodox neoclassical theory', where the notion of neo-liberalism is that its ideas
are universal, many of its advocates (such as some academics, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF hereafter), World Bank, International Olympic Committee (IOC
herefater), FIFA), point more to corruption and governmental interruptions for its
apparent failures, (Levermore & Beacom 2009).
Owing to this, neo-liberalism remains the most influential viewpoint shaping
contemporary development policies, (Mckay 2004). Unsurprisingly then Darnell
(2010a); Levermore & Beacom (2009) argue that the majority of SDP
conceptualisation links heavily with the aims and goals of neo-liberalism and
modernisation. Therefore, the imperative question to the SDP experts of this study
is how much their conceptualisations of development align with this international
perspective? Indeed the literature within SDP recognises a significant
amalgamation with neo-liberal philosophy in which the political and social
antecedents of inequity are infrequently challenged, but rather assists in the
inclusion of marginalised people in the material relations of capitalism, (Darnell
2010a). As such SDP is used to simply promote life-skills in the hope that this will
help secure employment and allow localised people to climb up the ladder of
22 Kola Adeosun
economic capital, however this, even if successful can only effect partial
development because the root causes of underdevelopment such as uneven power
relations, inequality, political oppression, social depravation and absolute poverty
have not been addressed, (Mwaanga 2012). Perhaps, if people were permitted to
participate in 'their development' such root causes can effectively be addressed.
Indisputably, when people participate in their development, progression and
survival, they are unquestionably living their lives by exercising human agency,
(McGee 2002). However, such agency is curtailed in SDP practices formulated on
international development thinking, and relegated within certain regimes of
rationality, allowing agency in the global north but obstructs the global south
rendering 'them' unthinkable, hopeless and undoable, replicating the neo-liberal
canons of international development within SDP, (Darnell 2010a).
Finally while powerful organisations such as the IOC and FIFA continue to take
interest in SDP (Darnell 2012), many will continually conceptualise SDP within this
international development perspective making it the norm, (Brohman 1995). In
which technical solutions of development are constantly drawn up and the creator
and receiver of knowledge remain distanced apart simply through the basic skills
to understand the technical language employed, (Brohman 1995). This remains the
technocratic illusion of international development, (Easterly 2013).
2.2.2. Participatory Development
The technocratic illusion of international development propagates that
underdevelopment stems from a shortage of experts and expertise, whereas
23 Kola Adeosun
underdevelopment according to Easterly (2013) comes from a shortage of
authentic indigenous knowledge and rights to participate. Therefore, participatory
development paradigms recognise through reflexivity that it is no longer enough to
permit the global south to participate in global northern projects because 'our'
(global northern) projects are not going to change their lives much, instead it looks
to understand what 'their' (global southern) projects of life might be and how we
(global northern academics, national governing bodies (NGO's hereafter),
practitioners, funders and governments) might best participate in them, (Mcgee
2002). As a result participation in the context of development is best described as
a process which all members of a locality or organisation are actively involved and
influence decisions which affect ‘their’ development, (Ondrik 1999). For instance
in their practical evaluation of the Jamaican Kicking Aids Out (KAO hereafter)
programme Mwaanga & Adeosun (in Press), actively encourage the participation of
end-users through the theoretical framework of the critical participatory paradigm
(CPP hereafter). End-users were supported and allowed to conduct interviews,
actively engage in discussions regarding ‘their’ programme and its needs,
transcribe and make meaning of interview data leading to their own programme
theories, with only guidance from researchers as input. In return it is assumed that
this approach will focus development efforts directly on the needs of that
particular community, (Ondrik 1999).
Indeed participatory development paradigms give principal attention to the
promotion of human agency and highlights that the many faults of development
today is due to the positivists philosophies of international development
approaches, (Maxwell 1984). However it is important to note that participatory
24 Kola Adeosun
development paradigms have been labelled with wide ranging criticisms and at
times have been likened as the new tyranny in development thinking, (Mcgee 2002;
Cleaver 1999). Some have branded its claims as excessive with little evidence to
support it, while others argue that within participatory thinking lies too many
techniques and approaches (King 1995), something Cleaver (1999) later refers to as
the 'tyranny of techniques'. As such arbitrary participatory development techniques
are carried out on faith because the idea of participation is intrinsically and
extrinsically a good thing, (Cleaver 1999).
However, Robson (2000) critically notes that as a researcher or practitioner it is
virtually impossible to do a good job in development by yourself, therefore
researchers and practitioners require the co-operation and contribution of end-
users, if only to provide information or allow access to people. Accordingly within
SDP the attraction of this approach is that it puts into action the requirement of a
conversation between the researcher and the participant, a much needed
exchange between SDP academics and end-users, (Coalter 2009[Levermore &
Beacom 2009]; Weiss 1997). Conceptualising development in this manner as said
previously allows the redressing of SDP thinking to facilitate the inclusion of more
local indigenous knowledge and inputs, in order to drastically disrupt entrenched
systems of global northern knowledge that creates the atmosphere of immutability
in SDP practices, (Mwaanga & Banda 2014). Consequently it is critical to determine
whether SDP experts allow their research participants to participate in research
endeavours and if so what are their methods to facilitate such participation?
25 Kola Adeosun
To surmise then whilst participatory techniques have been labelled with many
criticisms (some justified), participatory paradigms at least provide a basis which
allows researchers and practitioners to be reflexive and (to reference the earlier
analogy) be more like 'searchers' in the process of development, (Easterly 2007).
Certainly 'searchers' engage with reality and with the people in those realities,
bridging the positivist dichotomy between the researcher and end-users, (Mwaanga
2012; Easterly 2007; see also Mwaanga & Adeosun in Press). As such those
academics that conceptualise development with a participatory mind encourage
opportunities to participate in the construction of SDP policies that align with a
person or localities development, which are not development ends but actually
means, (Darnell 2012).
2.2.3. Development Concluded
Contextualisation of these two broad approaches to development thinking reminds
the reader that the study of development can take place within different socio-
political contexts depending on the actor in development practices. Whilst some
conceptualise development within this participatory development philosophy,
where even with its critiques, the goal is mainly to build trust and faith in one’s
development partners, (Black 2010; McGee 2002), there are some within SDP who
still conceptualise development through the international development philosophy,
which only reinforces the neo-colonial practice of SDP, (Darnell 2012). Therefore
one of the main goals of this thesis is to determine the conceptualisation of
development amongst the chosen experts. This, being important for the future of
26 Kola Adeosun
SDP research, to perhaps encourage the re-conceptualisation of certain SDP
practices.
Though it is accepted that the analysis of development is far too complex and
should rarely be reduced into the broad approaches of international and
participatory development, but within the context of this study, these approaches
are separated (and made distinct) to remind us that mainstream development
thinking is constituted of and by approaches that proposes specific techniques of
improving the lives of colonial subjects, (Easterly 2013; Darnell 2012).
Consequently certain approaches assume SDP assists in a step like progression
towards European modernity, where development is viewed as a universal ladder,
which at the bottom lies the global south and the top of the ladder represents
European standards, (McMichael 2010; Sachs 2005). This according to Hettne (1995;
1990) is the Eurocentric discourse of development theory in general. As such the
next section considers discourse and Eurocentrism.
2.3. Discourse of Eurocentrism within SDP
The north/south relationship and hegemonic colonisation of SDP through
international development practices, necessitates an interrogation of discourse
and its representations, (Rail 2002). Discourses can be defined as a set of constant
and consistent ideas which people use to navigate social reality and understand
their experiences and as such there are a range of theoretical discourses that can
be applied, (Pringle 2007; Rossi 2004). One, relevant to this study is the nature of
Eurocentrism because when applied to development studies, 'it' unveils the
27 Kola Adeosun
foundations in which mainstream development is built on; economic growth
through modernisation and neo-liberal philosophies, (Brohman 1995). Such
philosophies are the product of dominant discourses4, they facilitate, limit, enable
and dis-enable, what should or should not be said in particular spaces, (Elder-Vass
2008; Willig 2007[Cited in Smith 2008]). Expanding on this, Foucault's (1980) work
is particular useful in understanding discourses and their manifestations within
development. Indeed Foucauldian theory posits 'development' as a construct,
which identifies suitable ways of writing, speaking, thinking and practising
development, (Mwaanga 2012; Rossi 2004; Grillo 1997). Therefore discourses are
important because they highlight issues of knowledge such as whose knowledge is
legitimate, enabling manifestations of power, (Ashcroft, Griffiths & Tiffin 2013;
Nicholls, Giles & Sethna 2011; Foucault 1980). For instance, the nature of SDP
sending sport volunteers from the north to the south to drive development not only
renders the south undoable but legitimises the knowledge and power in which
northern volunteers bring, resulting in a society with a zero acceptance of
innovative southern knowledge, (Rossi 2004). Definitely the discourses accepted by
society (and within SDP) are the ones deemed 'true', dominant or legitimate. Truth
is subject to powers that influence the systematic creation of dominant discourses,
(Barker-Ruchti et al. 2013; Nicholls, Giles & Sethna 2011; Foucault 1980).
Certainly discursive normality or truth within SDP is represented in the
overwhelming Eurocentric approaches to development, reducing indigenous social
existence to some facets of European modernity, (Darnell 2012; Joseph & Roberts
2003; Shohat & Stam 1994). By Eurocentric this thesis of course refers to the
4 Discourses can also be recognised as a system of knowledge related to specific writings or language which is used to identify and legitimise power of one party over another, (Fairclough 1992).
28 Kola Adeosun
models of European economic history; and the theories derived from such
important and unique historical experiences, (Hettne 1995; 1990). Whilst the
Eurocentric discourse5 has formulated conceptualisations from its own history,
typically Eurocentrism pays little attention to historical legacies that formulated
global southern societies as this would make universal development along classical
northern lines unlikely, (Brohman 1995). Following the universalism of its formal
procedures and theories, the modernisation and neo-liberal frameworks exhibit
strong tendencies towards the Eurocentric discourse, thereby likening
Eurocentrism directly with the international development philosophy detailed
above, (Brohman 1995).
Undeniably within the field of development, discourses are classified at the point
of view of the dominant (what Bourdieu (1998) referred to as 'doxa'), presenting
itself as the universal world view which, to some extent affects social reality more
than other discourses, (Rossi 2004). It is of no surprise then as previously
mentioned that the international development philosophy has been referenced as
the dominant development philosophy within SDP, (McKay 2004). Although
discourses do not exists in isolation, and several dominant discourses permeate
social reality, interacting and conflicting with one another in different stages and
locations of development, (Nicholls, Giles & Sethna 2011; Mills 1997). Nevertheless
discursive formations are essential for understanding the ways in which discourses
secure, legitimise and transmit power, (Rail 2002). Certainly within SDP the
Eurocentric discourse privileges particular rationalities that legitimise northern
5 The Eurocentric discourse has impeded development progress both in the north and south. In the north is has restricted development studies and associated disciplines by limiting access to other discourses and indigenous knowledge, while in the south it has propagated dependence on a prestigious groups of northern intellectuals and academic institutions, (Brohman 1995).
29 Kola Adeosun
knowledge through relations of power thereby serving to marginalise and curtail
resistance from the global south, (Mwaanga & Mwansa 2013). Arguably then it is
important to analyse how exactly Eurocentrism manifests within SDP and to what
extent does it further legitimise power?
Unquestionably though, Brohman (1995) has contested that the Eurocentric
discourse has served as a handbook and permission of colonial management in the
global south. Consequently the extremely saturated white, male influence of
Eurocentrism needs to be scrutinised and challenged constantly and continuously
in critical development studies, (Darnell 2012; Joseph & Roberts 2003). Of course
it is within discourses that relationships are challenged and/or reinforced which is
necessary in understanding the workings of power, (Mwaanga 2012; Rail 2002).
Therefore discourses are forms of power because power produces (as with
discourses), subjective rituals of truth, (Rossi 2004). As such the next section
considers power and its influences within SDP conceptualisation.
2.4. Power and SDP
Though till this point power has been constantly and continuously referenced, but
power is an 'elastic' term to mean many different things which affects many
aspects of social reality, (Hearn 2012). In truth there are several dichotomies in
which power can be expressed, for instance micro versus macro, legitimate versus
illegitimate, physical versus social, structures versus agency or even actual versus
potential power, (Hearn 2012). Though, to fully engage with the connotations and
constructions of power within SDP it requires the examination of a particular
30 Kola Adeosun
framework of power applicable to the SDP context. Therefore an analysis of power
is essential because under the rubric of SDP, agencies from the global north obtain
the ability to exercise power, and influence the direction of indigenous
organisations, (Lindsey & Banda 2011). Representing, Russell's (Cited in Tomlinson
2008) fundamental argument; that power is the core concept of social science.
Indeed traditional thinking within social sciences often highlights power as
influence and control, treating power as a product, commodity or structure devoid
of human action, (Lips 1991; Luke 1989). Though, power is also relational, it can
be accessible and obtainable ‘to and by’ others, however Foucault (1981) further
argues that power is neither a structure nor an establishment we are endowed
with; it is in truth the term attributed to complex communal situations of social
reality. That said Lukes (1993; 1986) further reaffirms the relational aspects of
power, noting that power is the capability to produce or contribute to outcomes
which transform the world. Lukes (1993) goes on to say that ‘powers’ capabilities
to produce outcomes are only possible through the network of social relationships.
Hence why power, is manifested persistently within SDP; because as said, SDP is
not a benevolent social institution but a network of social interactions between
the relatively powerful and the relatively powerless, (Darnell 2012). Indeed the
SDP movement through its multifaceted networks provides SDP scholars the
opportunity to conduct indigenous research for ‘development’ purposes in a
manner described as attuned to the power relations and traditional political
structures which form and are formed by SDP, (Darnell 2010a; Andrews & Giardina
2008). Therefore SDP practices (re) produce Eurocentric discourses and are
reflective of the production and preservation of hegemonic power relations and
31 Kola Adeosun
global northern authority, (Darnell 2010a). This is a commonly articulated theme
as the previously mentioned internationalist focus of SDP means that development
efforts initiated in the global north are akin to hegemonic power relations which
continue to suppress the global south, (Lindsey & Grattan 2012; Lewis & Mosse
2006; Mosse 2004).
By suggestion, when power is illustrated as a hegemonic ideology, accessible,
obtainable and relational, then development within the context of this study can
be framed within Lukes (1974) dimensional analysis of power, in which he
identifies four expressions of power; ‘power to’, ‘power over’, 'power with' and
'power within' and all can be used to further understand the conceptualisation of
development within SDP. ‘Power over’ is viewed as when the ‘principal’ has
control over the ‘agent’, (Banda 2013; Hearn 2012). Generally when power is
thought of, most think of this ‘power over’ or what is commonly known as
domination6, (Hearn 2012). To be more specific, domination refers to the situation
where the 'will' of the ruler or rulers (principal) influences the conduct and
behaviour of one or others (the ruled or agents), and this ‘domination’ is not
episodic but relatively stable and ongoing, (Hearn 2012; 2011; Taylor et al. 1996;
Lukes 1986). Reflecting Lukes (1974) original argument regarding the dimensions of
power, that ‘power over’ creates a structure of dominancy which allows the
principal to shape and alter the ‘agents’ preferences. As such ‘power over’ fits the
rationale and reasoning of the international development philosophy detailed
above primarily because ‘power over’ through continued dominancy restricts the
6 Domination in the conventional sense is one of the crucial elements of social action, though of course not all forms of
social action encompasses a structure of domination, (Lukes 1986).
32 Kola Adeosun
people subject to SDP under this philosophy with little to no power to mobilise the
resources needed to set their own goals, (Darnell 2010a; McKay 2008; Li 2007).
Whereas, 'power with' references the ability to find common ground amongst
differing groups building with it collective strength, (Carne & Marti 2003). 'Power
with' is both relational and collective, unlike the coercive 'power over' which must
be continually reinforced to maintain its dominancy, 'power with' is an organic
development which evolves through the participation of people and grows in
strength with continual use, (Carne & Marti 2003; Foucault 1978; Lukes 1974).
Thus 'power with' is a structured form of collaboration which today is better
understood as the co-creative power of participation, (Carne & Marti 2003). Hence
as displayed in Table 1 (below) ‘power with’ is viewed as a tool of capacity
building and is more suited to the participatory conceptualisations of development
philosophy detailed above, (Ramazanoglu 1993; Freire 1970). Certainly 'power with'
multiplies individual ability, knowledge, talent and flair unlocking the unique
potential of individuals and their 'power to', (Carne & Marti 2003).
As such ‘power to’ is viewed as the capacity to realise ends ‘individually’, it is a
conservative view of power which assumes any ‘power to’ at an individual’s
disposal is a premier achievement and should be accepted as an inherently good
thing, (Hearn 2012). 'Power to' works on the idea that individuals have the ability
to make a difference within their localities, this idea of power is essential to SDP
as it embodies individuals, turning local people into indigenous 'searchers' and
mobilises individuals to resist dominant ideologies, giving rise to struggles against
manipulation and domination, (Hearn 2012; Rossi 2004). It is within 'power to' that
33 Kola Adeosun
individuals start to take affirmative control of 'their' own development, (Lukes
1974).
Though before 'power to' can be realised or 'power with' can be mutually exercised
it is critically important for researchers to firstly encourage 'power within', (Hunaj
& Pettit 2011; Bandura 1997). 'Power within' relates directly to an individual's
sense of value and self knowledge and the realisation of the fact that their
knowledge is worth something to the SDP field, (Hunjan & Pettit 2011; VeneKlasen
& Miller 2002). It is conquering this belief of 'powerlessness' shifting it into a
positive, yet rational frame of reference, as this expression of power recognises
that a large part of 'powerlessness' is merely the perception of 'powerlessness',
(Tadros 2010). Therefore amplifying the 'power within' individuals increases the
capability to hope, imagine and lift aspirations about change, leading to the
recognition of their 'power with' and 'power to', (Tadros 2010; VeneKlasen & Miller
2002). Consequently what are this study's SDP experts doing to develop and
encourage 'power within'? Although it is accepted that 'power within' is extremely
difficult to change, especially within groups who have historically and traditionally
been marginalised and placed on the periphery, but the attempt to help
marginalised individuals to realise 'power within', not only shows a certain
humility, but places trust in peoples abilities to contribute to their locality,
(Tadros 2010). Accordingly Freire (1970) details that this trust is the first step to
revolutionary change in any development practice.
- Table 1 further details the distinctions between the expressions of ‘power'
34 Kola Adeosun
Table 1.0 – Delineating ‘Power Over and Power To’:–
Adapted from Mwaanga 2012
Understanding of Power Effects in Practice Research
Power Over Involves a process of domination, where
the powerful imposes their will on the less
powerful, e.g. International development
philosophy.
Hearn (2012; 2011); Shaw
(2001); Lukes (1993; 1986).
Power To Reflects an individual's ability to act, to
shape his or her own life, e.g. being able
to decide development initiatives.
Hearn (2012; 2011);
Ramazanoglu (1993); Freire
(1970).
Power With Supports capacity building, alliance
building and coalition, e.g. Participatory
development philosophy.
Foucault (1980; 1978); Carne
& Marti (2003)
Power Within Increases of self worth and value leading to
individual agency, e.g. the value one
places on their knowledge and its impact.
Hunjan & Pettit (2011);
Hutzler & Sherrill (1999);
Bandura (1997); Sherrill (1997)
Revisiting the argument of ‘power over’, Lukes (1986) further argues that ‘power
over’ is most effective when ‘A’ administers and operates it behind the back of
‘B’, concealing ‘A’s true interests, (Hearn 2012; 2011; Lukes 1986). Giving birth to
the most critical and clandestine dimension of power, the covert dimension of
power, (Lukes 1986). This most insidious dimension of power operates below the
radar suppressing alternative approaches and knowledge’s within SDP for the
supposed best, because they are not perceived as valuable, (Mwaanga 2012).
Therefore, to what extent is it perceived that this study's expert
conceptualisations subvert indigenous knowledge's and (re) produces the covert
dimension of 'power over'? Certainly as previously noted it is a strange fact that
even within contemporary SDP where knowledge supposedly plays a bigger part in
development and progress than at any former time; there has not been an
equivalent growth of power for those who possess the new knowledge, (Lukes
35 Kola Adeosun
1986). This is due to the covert dimensions of power relations that surround the
SDP movement, which continually keeps knowledge flowing one way; ‘north to
south’ to the unawareness of global southern people, (Mwaanga & Adeosun in
Press).
2.6. Chapter Summary
This chapter has attempted to highlight different conceptualisations of
development framed within discourses of Eurocentrism and power relations. This
chapter’s main argument though is that given the heavily northern and
multivariate conceptualisations of development which determine the development
process of SDP, calls for a better understanding from those who work and research
in SDP. Subsequently detailing the need for the present study, therefore the main
aim of the current study is to understand, analyse and explore how active SDP
experts conceptualise development. Indeed it is increasingly acknowledged that
the viewpoints and perspectives of scholars and academics offer imperative
insights into the mechanisms that shape the SDP field, (Darnell 2010a).
Consequently the next section documents the proposed research methodology and
highlights how such insights will be collated.
36 Kola Adeosun
3. Chapter Three – Methodology
This study attempts to understand in better detail the conceptualisation of
development amongst chosen SDP experts, and how this influences the
development of knowledge and discourses that inform SDP. Indeed Blaikie (2000)
has noted that for a researcher to reach their study conclusions, the research
design must coordinate and connect back to the original objectives. Consequently
this chapter covers areas related to such research designs including, meta-
theoretical concepts such as ontology and epistemology, (Rudestam & Newton
2007), followed by the study's methodological foundations and method approaches.
Certainly methodological foundations inform the method approach, as the
foundations of research refer to the philosophy used to underwrite the whole
approach of the proposed study, (Oliga 1988). Next the procedures to data
collection, analysis and sampling are described. Furthermore the reliability and
validity of data is scrutinised alongside a detailing of the study's ethical
considerations. Firstly though, reflexive bracketing is described which expands
upon the researchers biographical positioning detailed in section 1.5.
3.1. Reflexive Bracketing
Reflexivity involves subjective reflection on the construction of knowledge, which
affects the whole nature of research. Whereas, bracketing is consumed deeply by
the researchers' role in interviews, specifically attempting to put aside subjective
biases, given participants a true voice through reflexive acceptance.
That being said, bracketing is a term without a uniform definition which has led to
many speculations as to its meaning within differing studies, (Tufford & Newman
37 Kola Adeosun
2010). On the one hand, Drew (2004) speculates bracketing as a task to identify
the qualities that come from a researcher’s experience of a particular
phenomenon while the preferred definition for this study is suggested by Gearing
(2004), who identifies bracketing as a ‘scientific process’ realised through
reflection to recognise academic biases. In other words a process achieved through
reflexivity to locate one’s orientation and theoretical viewpoint within their
particular study, (Tufford & Newman 2010). Certainly locating one’s academic
biases in the research process gives the researcher not only objective realisation
within interviews, which allows participants to share their world views without
being guided by the researcher’s particular beliefs but also allows the reader to
understand their position and as such ‘bracket’ the researcher’s biases, (Creswell
& Miller 2000). For that reason it is important to be both ‘explicit’ about biases
and identify method(s) used to conduct reflexive bracketing, (Beech 1999).
Therefore if the particular study’s aim is to understand the conceptualisation of
development within SDP experts, the researcher must state their bias and stipulate
their conceptualisation of development as one which is more akin with the
participatory paradigm of development explained above. Secondly the process
used to bracket such biases is in the form of a reflective journal briefly detailed in
Appendix 7.3. Subsequently bracketing is used during research to reduce the risk of
data being biased and reflecting simply the researcher’s worldview rather than the
participants, (Sorsa, Kiikkala & Åstedt-Kurki 2015; Ahern 1999).
All in all it is accepted that bracketing helps to mitigate some of the complexities
of research phenomenon, facilitating the researcher into deeper levels of
reflection unleashing the shackles of ethnocentrism and egocentrism, assisting new
38 Kola Adeosun
insights and innovation into social phenomena, (Tufford & Newman 2010). Indeed
recognising and bracketing knowledge and theory, is connected to the scientific
exercises of ontology and epistemology, which are detailed next, (Sorsa, Kiikkala &
Åstedt-Kurki 2015).
3.2. Ontology
Ontology is the underpinnings of all research, laying the foundations for one’s
epistemological and methodological positions to follow accordingly, (Grix 2002).
Hence ontology concerns itself with ‘what can be known’ about the world
examining what the researcher believes to be real regarding the nature of reality,
(Leavy 2014; Markula & Silk 2011; Merriam 2009). Therefore the researcher
through critical ontological assumptions assumes the nature of reality is created in
the natural experiences and power discourses that shape the social world, (Denzin
& Lincoln 2011; Carlsson 2006; Carlsson 2004). Consequently within the current
study, the nature of SDP is seen to be subjectively created by SDP experts relative
to their individual experiences, which influences 'what can be known' and by whom
in SDP. Indeed ontology falls within a relativist/realist dimension, a confluence of
objectivity and subjectivity where one assumes that the world is encompassed by a
true nature and the other assumes that we can never fully understand the true
nature of the world because external reality has a separate existence in the human
mind, (Kirk 2013). Thus ontological positions can be viewed either subjectively or
objectively, meaning accepting that social phenomena, either exist independently
of the human mind or their meanings are constructed and/or influenced by social
actors, (Grix 2002).
39 Kola Adeosun
3.3. Epistemology
The philosophical foundations of epistemology refer to the way in which a
researcher understands and utilises knowledge on the reality they are studying,
accepting that there are numerous ways in which social knowledge can be gained
and understood, (Leavy 2014; Clough & Nutbrown 2008). In this study the
interviewee's knowledge is seen as dominant, therefore the researcher cannot rely
solely on their own knowledge; they must interpret knowledge produced by
experts in order to better understand the dominant discourses surrounding SDP,
(Robson, 2000; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Therefore epistemology simply deals with
the theory of knowledge, its production as something obtainable and tangible to
something experienced and transcendental, (Kirk 2013; Guba & Lincoln 2008).
Moreover similar to ontological reality, epistemology can be perceived both
subjectively and objectively, and recognised within separate paradigmatic
frameworks. A positivist framework would develop knowledge through the
application of natural sciences to understand social reality; whereas, an
interpretivist framework looks at social reality shaped through the individual
experiences of people through social action, (Bryman 2008). As such, it is
important certify the study's methodological framework to fully understand the
study’s ontological and epistemological positions, (Grix 2002).
3.4. Methodological Foundations
In research endeavours it is crucially important at some stage to detail a
methodological position, (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2012; 2009). Whilst the field
40 Kola Adeosun
of social science consists of many methodological positions or paradigms, the aim
is not to judge which paradigm is 'best' but rather to situate a methodological logic
which 'best' suits the research at hand, given clarity and vision, (Markula & silk
2011; Denzin & Lincoln 2005; Strauss & Corbin 1998). With that in mind it is
important to remember that all paradigmatic positions entail certain limitations
and often new and different paradigms are (re) created out of such limitations,
therefore each paradigm encompass differing principles, beliefs, methods and
practices which can be utilised by a researcher in line with Appendix 7.9., (Markula
& Silk 2011; Kuhn 1970). This means that research needs to be clear in regards to
its ontological and epistemological alignment, (Markula & Silk 2011). Indeed the
study recognises itself ontologically as based on human experiences, which
operates in a world formulated by numerous realities relative to society and
epistemologically advocates the creation of knowledge as a collective process
between the researcher and participant(s), (Denzin & Lincoln 2011; Markula & Silk
2011; Morrow 1994). In short, the study aligns itself with the interpretivist
philosophical view detailed in Appendix 7.9., for its relativist ontology (individuals
produce several meanings of reality) and its subjectivist epistemology (interactive
participant/researcher knowledge creation process), (Markula & Silk 2011; Manning
1997; Guba & Lincoln 1989).
Indeed the Interpretivist position sits within the theoretical belief that reality is
socially constructed, hence what we know of the world is always negotiated within
social situations, cultures, relationships and interactions with other people,
(Markula & Silk 2011; Angen 2000). Subsequently interpretivism attempts to gather
lived experiences to attain knowledge, allowing the interpretation of subjective
41 Kola Adeosun
participant experiences, gaining meaning through a phenomenological process,
(Markula & Silk 2011; Heidegger 1962). This phenomenology refers directly to the
understanding of one's self through reflection representing the interpretivist
sensibility that protects against the 'crisis of representation', (Markula & Silk 2011;
Denzin & Lincoln 2005; Heidegger 1962). Indeed through phenomenological
awareness interpretivist researchers are more aware of their perhaps privileged
positions and as such are more inclined to consider reflexivity further rupturing
notions of objectivism in research, (Markula & Silk 2011). Nonetheless there are
dangers associated with interpretivism since the interpretivist paradigm does not
assume that some subjective experiences can be somewhat inhibited by cultural,
political and historical experiences, meaning some subjective experiences might
be constructed within societal power relations, and as such do not always reflect
‘ontological reality’, (Plummer 2005; Markula, Grant & Denison 2001). Furthermore
positivist researchers argue that the lack of scientific procedures needed for
verification means interpretive research results are not applicable to any other
situation, thereby lacking reliability (Mack 2010).
Therefore the positivist position is based on the theoretical beliefs of an objective
reality which can be known to the researcher, as long as the correct methods of
research are utilised, (Mack 2010; Angen 2000). Thus positivism posits an
objectivist approach based on assumptions of knowledge where beliefs need to be
empirically verified to provide an accurate data of reality and ascertain perceived
truth, (Angen 2000). However human thoughts and experiences are not easily
dissected and explained through laboratory settings or mathematical equations,
therefore because this study aims to understand individual conceptualisations, it
42 Kola Adeosun
thereby favours the interpretive paradigm, (Markula & Silk 2011; Hammersley
1989). With that said the interpretivist paradigm mainly aligns itself with the
qualitative methodology, (Markula & Silk 2011) thus making it important to
highlight qualitative methods as opposed to quantitative methods
3.5. Qualitative & Quantitative Methods
Knowing your methodological position leads inextricably to the next question of
what methodological approach will be used to ascertain information, (Miles &
Huberman 1984). There are two major methods of inquiry in social, behavioural
and natural sciences, known as, qualitative and quantitative methods, both with
differing dichotomies, (Silverman 2014). However these terms highlight much more
than just simple methods of inquiry but readily signify contradictory postulations
regarding the nature and purpose of research, (Bryman 1988). Even though they
are generally seen as polar opposites, Silverman (2014); Hammersley (1992) make
clear that it is slightly more problematic than that; but for the purposes of
explanation it is advisable to categorise them within their traditionally viewed
divisions as shown in Appendix 7.6. Therefore the quantitative methodology is
based on measuring the extent to which some feature is present through a context
free deductive process, (Silverman 2013; Denzin & Lincoln 2011; Gomm 2008; Kirk
& Miller 1986). This process has proven attractive to researchers aiming for
empirical validity and reliability of research outcomes, (Denscombe 2009). For that
reason there is a direct link between the quantitative methodology and the
positivist paradigm, which aims to use values derived from strict protocols and
procedures to universally define the world, (Markula & Silk 2011).
43 Kola Adeosun
Alternatively the qualitative methodology is associated to being more participatory
and naturalistic representing more the holistic nature of the natural world, (Kirk &
Miller 1986). The qualitative methodology proves attractive to researchers aiming
to identify the presence or absence of something because it assumes the nature of
reality is subjective and multiply created by individuals thereby linking the
qualitative methodology with the interpretive paradigm. This study hereby
advocates the use of qualitative methods which include interviews, symbol analysis
and observations because as Manning (1997); Hammersley (1989) suggest
quantitative methodology is not equipped enough to deal with the multiple
perspectives of human thoughts present in the real world. Though as previously
mentioned the differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies
can sometimes be problematic therefore, the study will also include certain facets
of quantitative evaluation such as validity and reliability justifications mentioned
in the later part of this chapter, (Cramer 2003; Patton 2002).
3.6. Methods
This section provides detailed accounts of the methods used within the current
study. Research methods represent the tools and techniques of conducting
research, shaped by the methodological foundations and methodological approach
stated, (Gomm 2008; Walliman 2001).
44 Kola Adeosun
3.6.1. Source of Data Collection: Semi-Structured Interviews
The primary sources of data collection used for the current study were semi-
structured one-to-one interviews. It is perceived that one of the few ways in which
to know truthful, accurate and interesting information is to interview people,
(Markula & Silk 2011). Fundamentally, interviews recognise that others
perspectives are meaningful and should be made explicit, (Patton 1987). As a
result interviewing is the contemporary means of storytelling, (Fontana & Frey
2000). Indeed interviews allow multiple voices to emerge and engage with
conversations concerning multiple realities, (Manning 1997). Nonetheless Kvale
(1996) reminds us that interviews are still conversations with a purpose, therefore
qualitative researchers must clearly state the purpose of interview questions.
Certainly semi-structured interviews are based on pre-prepared guides formulated
on the premise of a specific focus, though flexible and adjustable to certain
degrees they are oriented to ascertaining specific information in line with research
objectives, (Markula & Silk 2011). Further to this semi-structured interviews use
open-ended questions allowing interviews to be fluid and conversational, paving
the way for interviewees to speak readily about their experiences while the
interviewer still retains some measure of control, (Mwaanga 2012; Markula & Silk
2011).
The purpose of the current study's semi-structured interviews were to gain in-
depth knowledge regarding the conceptualisation of development amongst SDP
experts. Note, however that there are no such things as in-depth interviews which
45 Kola Adeosun
ascertain in-depth knowledge, only semi structured interviews that can gather in-
depth knowledge, therefore it is reliant on the skill of the interviewer to pull from
research participants important information related to study objectives, (Markula
& Silk 2011). Consequently based on the earlier literature review the researcher
must identify certain themes from interviews that lead to the development of
more in-depth knowledge or new and unexplored issues, (Markula & Silk 2011).
Undoubtedly for semi-structured interviews to be purposeful, specific respondents
must first be selected, (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2012, 2009).
3.6.2. The Delphi Technique
Accordingly the study used the Delphi technique to gather specific respondents to
contribute to the research topic. The Delphi technique is an analytical and
systematic method to research which relies on the judgement of individuals
presumed to be experts in a particular field of study, in this case being SDP,
(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009; Ritchie, Burns & Palmer 2005). The Delphi
method then attempts at negotiating reality through expert opinion in an attempt
to move a particular field forward, (Sprenkle & Piercy 2005). Thus the Delphi
philosophical underpinnings are more concerned with how knowledge shapes
reality as opposed to defining universal law, thereby linking the Delphi technique
directly with the interpretivist paradigm with which this study is located, (Sprenkle
& Piercy 2005).
Though, the Delphi method has been widely criticised by the believers of purist
science suggesting the Delphi does not allow a researcher to fully understand social
46 Kola Adeosun
phenomena, (Bajpal 1990). Suggesting that despite using experts subjective biases
still exist in human judgement therefore accurate accounts of reality are not
always given. Furthermore there can often be an inability to group together results
due to the multiple conceptualisations of experts who no doubt have wide ranging
knowledge and views regarding their particular field, (Albert 2014; Bajpal 1990).
Despite faults, the successes of the Delphi technique lay in the philosophical
assumption that 'multiple heads are better than one', (Sprenkle & Piercy, Pg 239).
Thereby, implying if multiple experts articulate similar thoughts; there is cause to
consider such knowledge as common consensus within a particular field of study,
as such panel selection is crucial within the Delphi method. Sprenkle & Piercy
(2005) report that expert panellist’s must be chosen to meet certain criteria’s
detailed in Appendix 7.7. Therefore Delphi panellists are not randomly chosen but
purposefully sampled for their particular expertise; as a result, the next section
considers sampling and sample ranges, (Sprenkle & Piercy 2005).
3.6.2.1. Sampling
Accordingly the study used purposeful sampling along with the Delphi criteria to
formulate a list of specific research participants to address the unique research
enquiry. Indeed within qualitative methodologies, samples are not randomly
selected as with quantitative methodology but purposefully, (Mack et al. 2011;
Markula & Silk 2011). 'Purposeful sampling' is derived from non-probability
sampling (Appendix 7.10.), however with non-probability sampling issues of sample
size are often ambiguous and uncertain, (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009).
Indeed it is best for the researcher to negotiate sample size with their supervisor
47 Kola Adeosun
as long as a rationale can be presented and defended, (Markula & Silk 2011).
Nonetheless Guest, Bunce & Johnson (2006) offer some direction to sample sizes,
proposing for studies aiming to understand commonalities and differences, sample
sizes should range between six and twelve.Thus the study consisted of six SDP
experts who were interviewed by the researcher in 2015.
3.6.3. The Process
The primary source of data collection was made up of six semi-structured
interviews lasting between thirty minutes and one hour. The interviewees included
one female and five male participants, all of whom have been engaged with SDP
for a minimum period of eight years (Appendix 7.8. holds further details on
participant attributes). All interviews were conducted by the researcher via Skype
at the convenience of all parties interested. Skype was used due to the sometimes
great distances of participants to the researcher and varied time zones; therefore
this allowed participants to partake in interviews within the convenience of their
own home or other places of convenience, ensuring the comfort of interviewees,
(Lapan 2012).
As said previously the interview guide was sent to all participants prior to the
interview date and the guide consisted of nineteen questions, four of which were
related to personal information and descriptive demographic information to ease
the participants into the interview process, and the rest were open-ended
questions on three separate topics (Appendix 7.5.) allowing participants to
converse for however long they felt necessary, (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009).
48 Kola Adeosun
All interviews were completed in English, the English language was chosen because
it is the researcher’s first language, therefore making it easier for the researcher
to pull out imperative information from interview data. Moreover the English
language was the first language for more than half of the participants, with English
being the second language for the remainder.
3.6.4. Approach to Data Analysis
The data analysis commenced upon completion of the semi-structured interviews
and this was completed in two distinct phases. The first phase included
transcribing all interviews verbatim into what Corbin & Strauss (1990) describe as
pure data, which has not been analysed in anyway. However it is not sufficient to
present the results simply as pure data, therefore, this data has to be interpreted
to answer the specific research objectives, (Markula & Silk 2011). Therefore
thematic coding must be applied to interpret data. According to Misener (2013)
thematic analysis is a process of identifying codes within data which are then
collapsed or connected into certain patterns (themes). Within the study a total of
eighty-four codes where identified, and then firstly collapsed into twenty further
codes and then into six specific themes to enable the extraction of logically
consistent meaning. Of course it is imperative that any themes developed relate
directly to the literature review and any grounded theory that is discovered to be
relevant along the way, this commences phase two of data analysis, further
detailed in chapter four, (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009).
49 Kola Adeosun
3.7. Reliability and Validity
Reliability denotes the ease to which research is replicable while validity
ascertains whether the research is actually measuring what it claims to, (Jones et
al. 2013; Long 2007). Although in qualitative research, reliability is a continually
contested concept based on the fact that individual experience is subject to
multiple factors depending on the particular day or surroundings, research is
conducted, (Markula & Silk 2011). Therefore Stenbecka (2001) disputes that if
reliability in qualitative research is a precondition the consequence actually means
the study is fixed and rigid rendering it unusable. Though Patton (2002) contrasts
this point suggesting reliability is essential to any study as its replicability is a
judge of its quality. Yet, Healy & Perry (2000) have stated that the quality of a
study should be judged by the parameters of the paradigm it is situated.
Consequently qualitative studies judge its trustworthiness and quality through
reflexivity further disrupting concepts such as reliability, (Markula & Silk 2011). As
a result this study’s reflexivity is continually mentioned and its process of
reflexivity is further detailed in Appendix 7.3., to maintain quality of research
results. In reference to validity, this questions the credibility of participants, data
received or collected in relation to the phenomena in question, (Merriam 2009). In
summary given that the sample population are SDP experts as confirmed through
the Delphi criteria, this goes some way to assuming data received is credible for
research measurements, (Sprenkle & Piercy 2005).
50 Kola Adeosun
3.8. Ethical Considerations
Indeed ethics is a set of rules by which society maintains moral standards, however
the interactions with people in qualitative research creates ethical dilemmas,
(Lapan 2012; Matthew & Ross 2010). Therefore a clear ethical procedure is needed
to ensure that all research participants are treated with respect and dignity,
(Markula & Silk 2011). In the case of the present study ethical clearance was
granted by the governing university (Southampton Solent University), and a copy of
the ethics form is located in Appendix 7.11. Moreover it is important to gain
consent from all participants, therefore each participant completed an informed
consent form which fully detailed intended purpose, methods, and possible use of
research, (Markula & Silk 2011). That being said however it was important to
continually gain consent throughout the research process, making participants
aware they can remove their consent at any time, (Markula & Silk 2011).
Furthermore all participants received a copy of the intended questions for
interviews prior to their interview date allowing full disclosure of information.
Consideration is also given to confidentiality especially with the specific positions
of each participant therefore all have been made anonymous with only the use of
pseudonyms accompanying data presented, meaning only the researcher knows the
true identity of each respondent, (Denzin & Lincoln 2011).
51 Kola Adeosun
3.9. Chapter Summary
This chapter has established the particular procedures which were used to collect
research. To begin this chapter identified reflexive bracketing as a way to avoid
subjective biases while gathering research data. Then the methodological
foundations were discussed accompanied with ontological and epistemological
premises, which gave the basis to compare qualitative and quantitative
methodology given the use of appropriate methods. In addition a contextual
analysis of ethical considerations is given as well as the challenges of reliability
and validity within social scientific research. Certainly within social research the
strength of research design rely on methods that allow participants to articulate
alternative worldviews and thus resulting in a better conceptualisation of
development within SDP, (Barron 2011: Markula & Silk 2011). With the
methodological substructures identified the study now turns its attention to the
research findings and their implications.
52 Kola Adeosun
4. Chapter Four – Results and Discussion
This chapter begins phase two of data analysis as mentioned in section 3.6.4 and
connects theory presented in the earlier literature review along with current
research findings. The literature review discussed the discourses which contribute
to understanding development thinking and knowledge creation in SDP; this
included the idea of sport, Eurocentrism, power and development
conceptualisations. To re-iterate pseudonyms have been used to maintain
confidentiality and anonymity of participants, while the researcher continually
maintained the adoption of reflexivity to examine results and recognise and dissect
emerging themes.
Through this examination and holistic contextualisation of interview data this
chapter presents four of the seven themes developed from analysis, which
includes, 'project-based development', 'sport - facing reality' 'negotiating power'
and 'individual vs. community focus'.
Indeed these emergent and prevailing themes are emphasised and where possible
are applied to the relevant discussion points from the literature review and as such
the first theme discussed is project-based development.
53 Kola Adeosun
4.1. Project-Based Development
The review of literature explored the idea of development and presents this
exploration through two separate approaches, participatory and international
conceptualisations. Whilst admittedly broad, these conceptualisations give a
launch-pad to understanding development practices in the global south and under-
privileged localities. At first glance, the results of the data analysis show that all
the experts included in this study, emit a participatory conceptualisation to their
development practices and in response to the earlier question, 'do experts allow
end-users to participate in research practices', it can be accepted that experts in
this study, in their conceptualisations see participation as a must for development
practice. Further exemplified below by Steve, Tony and Remy, who champion
participatory thinking,
"Well, if you’re trying to develop skills, the only way to do that is through
participation, is through volunteering, it is through allowing people an experience
of organisational skills. Unless you allow people to organise and provide for
themselves, the skill they are learning is very limited. Educationally you learn by
doing". (Steve Rogers)
"I think there’s various principles, trying to make it valuable to the field of sport
for development has always underpinned it. I think from that some principles of
ways of going about research. Do it on the basis of really involving people in the
country in the research process as far as possible – I have written a couple of things
about this more recently, the 2009 project in Zambia involving people from Sport
In Action in shaping the design of the research". (Tony Stark)
"But realising that for change to occur, there are certain routes and if you keep on
suggesting that participative and participant – everything that post-colonialism
stands for, for me, ideologically, that’s exactly the right way to go". (Remy
LeBeau)
54 Kola Adeosun
Natasha, Bruce and Clinton further support these opening statements by detailing
participatory development to be typified by involvement and input, where end-
users along with the researcher and/or practitioner look to generate authentic
indigenous knowledge specific to their locality for development purposes, (Robson
2000).
"I think, if I look at all those terms and the ones that connect most with me are
participatory, sustainable and community. I think those are central, you need the
whole community involved, it’s got to be driven by the whole community, and
through that, hopefully it will be ongoing". (Natasha Romanoff)
"My pedagogical approach to the workshops is such that the participants feel
themselves that they are making their own decisions within those case studied and
that their indigenous knowledge is helping them come to those decisions within
those case studies. And I make it as open, as collaborative as it can be using very
good participatory approaches within those discussions so that when we come to
conclusions they are able to see their own voices within those conclusions, that
that’s a conclusion we reached and be able to identify their own voice within those
conclusions". (Bruce Banner)
"but it is not economic, that’s for sure, in the way I kick off, that’s not part of my
understanding of development when I speak about sport. When I speak and also
write about sport and development I would say it is closer what you would say I
guess in English the best word is community or participation". (Clinton Barton)
These emergent conceptualisations are unsurprising as participation is seen as both
a 'means' to accomplish the plans of a research project and/or programmes (P/P
hereafter) quickly, economically and successfully and an 'end' where the locality
eventually take control of the processes of their own development, (Nelson &
Wright 1995). Further to this Darnell & Hayhurst (2011), suggest that participatory
techniques are a viable method to 'reinvigorate' SDP. However a more critical look
at the data shows that the SDP expert's practices are carried out majorly through
SDP P/P funded by northern organisations. For example Clinton and Steve, detail
how their practice and recent research has been P/P orientated.
55 Kola Adeosun
"One of my very last projects is actually sport policy towards summer sport which
is aimed at people in the north". (Clinton Barton)
"My level would be programme processes and the extent to which they impact
positively on certain participants". (Steve Rogers)
Further to this Tony and Natasha express how their first exposures to SDP came
through similar research P/P originating in the north but destined for the south.
"In terms of Sport and Development in relation to the global south I first became
involved in 2006 when I was based at Loughborough University and they were
sending out a first group of students to Zambia on a research project and one of
my senior colleagues at Loughborough, arranged for a research component to be
added on to that first visit to Zambia and chose me to be involved in that, luckily".
(Tony Stark)
"The PhD was looking at gender issues in women’s soccer which did eventually
transfer into a sport for development context and have a look at women’s football
in Zambia as well. But the first visit was part of a separate research project that
was led by.....at Brunel University". (Natasha Romanoff)
Consequently showing SDP's approach to development as one which uses P/P as a
vaccine to the epidemic under-development, protruding from the global south.
Unfortunately P/P can be dehumanising in their design, as they usually require the
exposure of one side (global south/end-users), requiring 'them' to detail everything
about themselves in order to enter into such P/P without the same requirements
made of the researcher. From this standpoint, we in the global north should
remember then, that such P/P happen within hegemonic relations that allows
privileged groups to maintain a continuous position of advantage and accruement
over others, making P/P a key site of political practice, (Darnell 2010; Li 2007).
Therefore the hegemonic positions P/P create does not encourage reflexivity and
as such the practice of projects cannot be said to be participatory even if experts
conceptualisations suggest otherwise. To further this point Bruce asks a reasoned
question regarding P/P and the possibilities of 'true' participation saying
56 Kola Adeosun
"So that if the programme is designed, when its designed right from the start, at
the point of conceptualising of that project and you have identified a target
group, what role is the target group playing right from the beginning in designing
that project. It goes back to true partnerships. How are you really bringing them
in". (Bruce Banner)
Although the aim is not to simply discredit any researcher (including this study's
author) who works in projects and whilst we accept in line with Freire (1970) that
any researcher who has recognised, researched and hereby written about the neo-
colonial and hegemonic compression of SDP, is truly committed to transforming the
un-just order, we must question in line with Cameron (2006) who asks how are we
really going to see participatory conceptualisations transform into authentic and
true partnership practice. Though it should be noted that the majority of experts
accept that P/P are perhaps not the most ideal site to see such conceptualisations
transform into action, none more so than Natasha and Tony, given that most P/P
are controlled by northern donor organisations motivated with individual agendas
meaning there focus is streamlined.
"I say fairly typical but also specific to my situation in that most of the work I’ve
done in this area has been funded by funders who are from the Global North
funding projects in the Global South. That’s always the impression. I’ve never just
been able go into communities independently and see just what’s happening. It’s
an agenda on the research I have to do set by the donors". (Natasha Romanoff)
"I argued that sport for development, is still centred around a project based
approach and quite narrow, different projects are narrow in different ways. But
they might be narrow in terms of the things we’ve talked about, the desired
outcomes, the sports they use, the manuals they use, but equally they might be
narrow in their geographical focus, they might be narrow in their time span in
which they operate. So we’ve got a really fragmented field and a field that is
based on narrow projects and I think that inherently limits the development
potential of sport". (Tony Stark)
57 Kola Adeosun
However Steve argues that without donor funding to community organisations, P/P
would not exists and therefore the opportunities for positive change would be
limited further.
"But most third sector organisations are like that. Even in this country. If you want
to exist, if you want money, you have to meet someone else’s agenda. You overlay
this with some new liberal, neo-colonial thing but come back home and look here.
I’ve worked with organisations in Belfast that operate in exactly the same way.
You can’t expect people to give you money and then just **** ***. People give you
money because they have an agenda as well. Look at Comic Relief, they are friends
of MYSA, it was Holland and Norway that fundraise for them but without doubt
MYSA wouldn’t exist, so I don’t know what the argument here is. None of these
people impose anything on them. These organisations would never ever be self-
sufficient. It’s impossible. They get money, but I don’t understand what the
argument is". (Steve Rogers)
Whilst the above statement has some truth to it, the impact of northern financing
on southern organisations like the Mathare Youth Sport Association (MYSA
hereafter) should not be likened simply to the natural order of things without
further consideration. Therefore to build this argument, this thesis draws on the
work of Darnell (2012) who argues that the example of MYSA, which is rightly
displayed as an example of southern agency and has received considerable support
from donors and whilst necessary to their existence such financing unavoidably
constructs the frameworks of power that underline SDP. Thus development P/P
reliant on northern financing cannot be reduced as immaterial, but rather it should
remind us that this form of development aligns with the neo-liberal philosophy
prominent in the international development framework, (Darnell 2012). Therefore
northern organisations maintain the power and money to determine the nature of
development practice, making SDP a 'game of money' for southern organisations,
where they must align with northern organisations agenda's to receive support. As
such serious consideration needs to be given to how SDP moves away from this
project-based development, as suggested by Tony.
58 Kola Adeosun
"What I don’t see an awful lot of consideration of is how we move beyond this
project focus, essentially". (Tony Stark).
Therefore, moving forwards SDP experts should look for more holistic ways to
negotiate development practices which better fits their conceptualisations; an
approach which requires exclusive reflexivity on both sides and one which reduces
the 'game of money' that needs to be played. This may involve attempts to make
global southern organisations self sufficient, reducing northern financing and the
criticisms of neo-liberalism and international development approaches. However,
how this self-sufficiency can be achieved is a question that requires further
consideration. Definitely though, the pre-disposition to reify 'the project' in SDP
discourse and practice has no doubt added to a partial, incomplete and distorted
understanding of the realities of global southern people, which in return
consequently privileges the development donor/financing organisations, (McGee
2002). Of course however the conclusions of this theme could be taken to mean
abandoning SDP projects all together, for fear of securing hegemonic relations, but
given over 150 projects in over 365 organisations worldwide, such a conclusion to
leave the global south to their fate, is not only morally and ethically unjustifiable
but also short-sighted, (IPSD 2014; Mwaanga & Banda 2014; Darnell 2010;
Levermore 2008b; Matthews 2008).
4.2. Sport – Facing Reality
Whilst section 2.1., was fairly critical towards the idea and use of sport, matching
some of the literature found in SDP research, it must be noted again that sport can
59 Kola Adeosun
play an integral role in development, (Mwaanga 2012; Mwaanga 2010; Beutler
2008; Levermore 2008a). As such the participants of this study were asked what
role do they see sport playing within development and all agreed that sport has
certain qualities, for instance Bruce notes how we could use the uniqueness of
sport,
“We could use sports unique aspects, the unique attributes of sport such as it’s a
social mobilisation, it has youth appeal, it’s a youth language, everyone
understands it, so those are attributes of sport”. (Bruce Banner)
Clinton also adds that the common nature of sport makes it an easily accessible
tool,
“Sport is always there in the community, so sport can always be used and they can
always use sport”. (Clinton Barton)
Furthermore Tony details how a sport with a colonial past can be used to
challenge the very antecedents of colonialism.
“You can take a sport with a colonial history and use it to challenge that colonial
history”. (Tony Stark)
Perhaps Tony’s statement is no truer than the case of Nelson Mandela who used
rugby as opposed to football to challenge social norms, even though rugby was
seen as the ‘white’ sport of South Africa, the sport of masculine, modern and
developed behaviour and the eternal symbol of colonial dominance, (Morodi 2011).
‘Mandela’ saw the importance of sport, he saw ‘it’ as a site for the creation of
individual expression and empowerment, and by empowerment we of course refer
to the broad definition from Zimmerman (1995), as feelings of self-belief, efficacy
60 Kola Adeosun
and the motivation to exert control. ‘Mandela’ found this empowerment through
his own experiences in sport, understood its importance in building for individual
and national future, he however did not solely rely on sport, he also saw the
importance in other forms of expression, (Mandela 1995). Which is perhaps what is
missing from the representation of sport in SDP, Steve elaborates this last point
saying
“But my view is the old view that sport on its own can develop individuals I think is
becoming increasingly problematic. I think if people are increasingly recognising
that you have to add other things to it to develop young people, particularly if
we’re aiming towards the labour market. I think there’s an increasing awareness it
has to be ‘sport-plus’ other focused employability skills. That would be my
argument”. (Steve Rogers)
In line with this thesis literature review it is agreed that there needs to be further
consideration and acknowledgement of different engines of development when
working with sport. Though to return to Steve’s point, terms like “sport-plus”, are
perhaps one of the reasons why sport continues to be centralised, as it portrays
sport as ‘the’, prerequisite for development. Nicholls, Giles & Sethna (2011),
suggest ‘sport-plus’ is the use of sport to achieve development goals, by
incorporating development objectives into a sport programme. However such
development objectives may be met by other means within the programme and
not necessarily by participating or playing sport, for example through health
education seminars or employability workshops, carried out by experts in those
fields which have nothing to do with sport but sport remains credited as the site of
socio-political change. Why, because sport is an exotic terrain that carries with it a
benevolent appeal, (MacPhail, Kirk & Eley 2003). Though of course, this thesis is
not suggesting that terms such as ‘sport-plus’ should not be used, but to remind us
61 Kola Adeosun
of the immediate implications that come with adding ‘sport’ positively to any title.
These implications being that sport is perceived as the singular driving force
behind that development objective. As such this thesis is suggesting that those
working in sport should remain continually reflexive and remember to hold a
humble position as to sports effects as Remy elaborates,
"But don’t go down the whole evangelical route of saying the sport is absolutely
fantastic do it in a humble way and realise that it can be problematic" (Remy
LeBeau)
Furthermore Steve acknowledges the humbleness needed in sport and states the
point that sport needs to consider actual experts from varying fields in which sport
is implemented
“I mean there are so many disparate organisations that are doing very, very
different things. I mean, for example, if you take sport and HIV Aids and
education. One is working in the area of medical interventions and medical health
and the other is working in the area of educational development, cognitive
development. Now these are very different intellectual fields. I’m not sure sport
can connect those up because I think to understand these fields you’ve got to go to
health education experts, you’ve got to understand the nature of health
interventions or, if you go to education, you’ve got to understand educational
theory. And I think the problem is that sport is a very loose way of holding quite
disparate intellectual themes together. I think that people should get closer to the
experts, so if they are working in sport HIV Aids, we should work with medical
experts. If you’re doing sport and education, we should work with
educationalists”. (Steve Rogers)
This last statement implies that sport loosely brings different intellectual groups
and people together with an appealing common interest, and whilst this should not
be understated, ‘we’ should all be careful not to overstate it, as the idea of sport
for development is mainly driven by those that work in sport and have a healthy
adoration for sport. As suggested by Remy
62 Kola Adeosun
“I love sport, which is one of the reasons I started focusing on it. I really would
like to think it could work for development but I just don’t think you have enough
development people believing in sport still. It’s really driven by sports people”
(Remy LeBeau)
Further to this Natasha references that there are other things which have similar
abilities to sport.
“Other activities can do the same as sport. Art, drama, music, can all do the same
as well. So I don’t think sport’s any different from that but I think it’s a platform
that appeals, so I think it is just a piece of the jigsaw really”. (Natasha Romanoff)
Therefore, those of us working in SDP must accept the importance of other engines
of development and to recognise that sport sometimes dehumanises other forms of
expression and de-values other approaches which may equally have something to
offer in the process of development.
To conclude then, experts from this study have confirmed that sport is perhaps not
the single panacea for development and sport is simply a piece of a bigger puzzle
which needs to be aligned for development objectives to be reached. Additionally
it is important for us in the SDP field regardless of our personal feelings towards
sport to be continually reflexive and humble in our use of sport and the
terminologies around sport otherwise popular representations of sport in SDP will
continue which only further solidifies, the political state of unequal development,
(Darnell 2014). Making, by extension working towards development through sport a
discourse which recreates the power dimension between the global north and
global south, (Darnell 2012; Bairner 2009). Appropriately, the next section
considers discourse and power.
63 Kola Adeosun
4.3. Negotiating Power
The literature review highlighted Lukes (1974) dimensional analysis of power and
Eurocentric discourses which are central to the conceptualisation of development.
Previously the question was asked how Eurocentric discourses emerge within SDP,
and Bruce gives us a very direct answer below
"I think the conceptualisation of sport for development has come from groupings of
forums involving wealthy stakeholders organised within Europe and it’s from those
conferences where I would say different people from different parts of the world
were brought to those forums and they contributed to that. But because again
those were spearheaded by Europe so there is a sense of Eurocentricism within
those ones also. And the initial office for sport for development, even though it
has been going on in the South but the head office was set up here, in Europe,
Geneva, and whether that party at that time had the representation from the
South to show that we want to have indigenous knowledge influence the shaping of
sport for development, I doubt whether it had, so in a way we still see a lot of
Eurocentricies in sport for development and when it goes out there, it goes out
there in the shape of Europe". (Bruce Banner)
This statement immediately details how Eurocentrism was created in SDP
positioning the north as the knowledgeable, benevolent and financially able
development worker whilst viewing the south as the wounded and poverty stricken
helpless infant in need of rescue, (Nicholls, Giles & Sethna 2011). In turn this
rescue comes in the shape of volunteers from the north being sent to the south
with pre-existing notions and perceptions of the locality they are entering, as
further detailed again by Bruce.
"So when they go out to Africa some of them, even students when we prepare
them to go out, they still have notions of their going out to the Dark Continent and
if they are going out to the Dark Continent, they have notions of going to
modernise groups where they are going to work and in that way they have a
certain power that they go with them, they are coming from very privileged
background". (Bruce Banner)
64 Kola Adeosun
Even though our experts accept in line with Njelesani (2012); Giulianotti (2004)
that the movement of volunteers and sport evangelist from north to south serves
to represent the possible imbalance of power between donor and recipients,
exemplified wholly in Steve's statement
"I think that the bottom up programmes I work with, the organic programmes, the
community based programmes are very different from flying in young blond people
for six months a year, you know? I think that I have an aversion to foreign driven
volunteers". (Steve Rogers)
Regardless of this P/P, even organic ones that still require the input of a northern
expert despite their best-intentions still require an establishment of a dichotomy
between the empowered and the disempowered, the knower(s) and the known
(Njelesani 2012; Darnell 2007), and still very much creates a divide between the
outsider and the insider which gives rise to the covert dimension of power.
Although Steve suggests that
"There are no relationships without power in them somewhere". (Steve Rogers)
This thesis must align with the conceptions of Remy, who suggests
"People who are in positions of power don’t always realise it and the response you
have is a pragmatic one that, yeah, ok, you have to work with it somehow" (Remy
LeBeau)
As such experts were asked how they negotiate power and develop 'power within'
in their various practices. Indeed the development of 'power within' allows 'one' to
oppose, challenge and change the covert dimension of power through gaining a
critical consciousness to how covert power materialises, (VerneKlasen & Miller
65 Kola Adeosun
2002). As such Bruce details his approach to negotiating power as one which
involves removing himself from the decision making process.
"So when I conduct my own workshops I play a very facilitative role in that I
remove myself from that decision making process". (Bruce Banner)
However Tony argues that perhaps this approach of removing yourself from the
decision making process further strengthens the power dimensions prevalent within
SDP, and whilst you cannot really negate power perhaps developing a closer
relationship with the people being researched is the best way to work around
power.
"We want to take an objective analysis of sport for development and the only way
we can get an objective analysis is distancing ourselves from the people involved in
sport for development. Our argument is did that distance just reinforce the power
dimension? For me it confuses eliminating it with just ignoring it and instead I
think we can try and make the case, that actually by developing closer
relationships, I mean there is still a limit to how close me as white, western,
academic, middle class can actually get, but by developing closer relationships
with those involved in sport for development we’ve developed a more new
understanding of the context within which they are operating in their lives doesn’t
negate the power dimension but it allows in some cases perhaps for more trusting
relationships to emerge". (Tony Stark)
Clinton further supports this statement saying
"My main argument in my work I would say is that in order to do anything called
sport policy implementation we need to understand the grass roots, the policy
implementers by developing relationships by talking to representatives of the
system you need trust which you need to continue that part with research
especially interview situations where you’re face to face with one person and if
she or he can’t trust you, then they won't go on". (Clinton Barton)
Clinton and Tony allude to the need of trust and developing trust, indeed trust
both ways from the researcher and from the participants is the necessary
66 Kola Adeosun
ingredient for revolutionary change, (Freire 1970). Certainly in her approach to
power Natasha cites the need also to develop trust.
"I don’t think you can ever negate that power relationship. You have to understand
that it’s there and you have to work round it so I think the first example of how
this has been on the Go Sisters project – it’s benefited from longevity, so that’s
been five or six years of continued research and going back and working with the
same people in Zambia and I think even that is starting to minimise the power,
having regular been in the country and with the same people and developing the
trust and the idea you’re not just going in and doing this smash and grab".
(Natasha Romanoff)
But however in Natasha's statement whilst accepting that developing deeper
relationships which lead to trust is important for working around power she also
makes an important point regarding longevity. Indeed the short-terminism
associated with the project-based development of SDP means that developed
relationships can be fleeting and ephemeral given that SDP projects tend to last no
more than three years at a time, (Hylton et al. 2001). As such these developed
relationships cannot facilitate the development of 'power within' unless they are
sustained over a period of time as Mwaanga & Prince (in Press) suggest that
evidences of 'power within' and 'power to' can sometimes be seen up to eleven
years after a programme begins. Consequently perhaps for SDP experts to
effectively develop 'power within', their needs to be a shift towards more
longitudinal based research, which encourages, in line with Spaaij & Jeanes (2012)
experts spending considerably more time in the locality they are researching,
reducing the 'short-terminism' associated with SDP projects.
Certainly longitudinal based research can be defined as a continuous investigation
of the same cohort of people over a period of time, sometimes decades to monitor
67 Kola Adeosun
any changes in life events, (Ployhart & Vandenberg 2010). In reality longitudinal
based research has no minimum time for it to be classed as longitudinal but also
requires no maximum set time to see change occur; hence longitudinal based
research could be used as a technique of continuous relationship building within
SDP which allows experts to examine the development of 'power within' over time,
(Ployhart & Vandenberg 2010; Cresswell & Ekland 2007; Saldaña 2003; Young,
Savola & Phelps 1991). Though, it must be noted that whilst longitudinal based
research is presented as a viable option to further reduce the power dimension of
the SDP field, longitudinal based research in this form will require further critical
investigation.
4.4. Individual Vs Community Focus
Even though experts of this study together accept in their conceptualisations that
development should be carried out more in line with the participatory philosophy
as referenced earlier, they however differ on the focus of this participation,
whether it is with an individual or the larger community. A thought not fully
considered in the earlier literature review, but became prevalent in the analysis of
data. For example Bruce, references below how even if from a participatory
conceptualisation our focus should be one centred on individuals
"The key thing is that development should be about maybe empowerment and
empowerment of the target group. And if all theories could come within that field
and it’s all hinged on human centre development, whatever perspective or school
we come from even if participatory, I think the key thing should be a human
centre to development, one that reduces the role of the expert, ourselves that
claim to be.....When I talk about human centred development it is development
that looks at the individual, the individual who’s not in a vacuum but sits within
the family". (Bruce Banner)
68 Kola Adeosun
Further to this Remy adds that we must be pragmatic in our approach and
recognise that within a group every individual is different
"I think all work is subjective and there has to come a point where you listen to
whatever indigenous might mean to different people and you go down the
anthropological route and accept that one person is an indigenous group because
every individual is different". (Remy LeBeau)
Certainly the success of development for Steve, hinges on enriching the life of an
individual,
"I have a tendency now to concentrate only on the workings of individual projects
and processes that might produce changes in values and attitudes for individual
participants. So that’s where I think that we have to be very, very precise on what
level we are working and my level would be programme processes and the extent
to which they impact positively on certain participants" (Steve Rogers)
Perhaps the development of an individual may yield more obvious successes than
trying to work with a whole community at a time and undeniably some individual
theories have shown that developing an individual within a group can lead to forms
of collective empowerment which is only beneficial for the greater society, (Cho
2008). Maybe within SSA an individualistic approach is more appealing and realistic
giving that living individualistically gives a greater chance and plausibility to the
probability of success to an individual, (Mwaanga & Banda 2014). However
Mwaanga & Banda (2014) further question whether an individual focus can go on to
help resolve social problems faced within the greater community. Bruce stresses
this by critically building on his earlier point referencing that for an individual
focus on development to result in an improved community we must question the
individual's ability to actually contribute to their community
69 Kola Adeosun
"But is the individual able to participate; are they a citizen of their own
community? Can they interact within their community, participate in decision
making, and attend different forums within their community". (Bruce Banner)
Additional Natasha notes that perhaps having an individual focus is to narrow and
focusing on the greater community would yield greater success
"And then a lot of people argue, focus on the individual first and then move
outward but I think that’s quite narrow because we can’t, just look at one young
person in particular. If you only work with individual young people, it’s very hard
to then make sustainable choices in their communities; you need to have that
wider community on board to begin with. So, I think the community is more
central and the individual will follow there" (Natasha Romanoff)
Clinton, supports Natasha's views by suggesting his immediate thought when it
comes to development,
"Because I would say immediately when you say development, I think working in
participation with the community" (Clinton Barton)
From these thoughts it is clear that the experts of this study are clearly divided on
who should be the focus of development work. Perhaps Tony leans towards a more
collective focus suggesting the resourcefulness in developing whole communities,
"its more resource intensive but would be far more effective is vesting in forms of
training, development of communities to develop the skills required, help them
develop and mutually develop the skills required to do whether it is the delivery
of sessions" (Tony Stark)
But it could be argued that he doesn't clearly state a side in this theme but rather
elucidates the need for sustainability whether you are working with the individual
70 Kola Adeosun
or the community, even if SDP needs to form a greater understanding to the
meaning of sustainability.
"I argued that actually and what comes with that project focus is a focus on
sustainability, how do we sustain the activities that are delivered in those
projects. How do we continue running those activities, in your case, going from
your questions, how do those activities continue running beyond the three years of
the programme, or however long the programme lasts for. And that doesn’t
consider what we mean by sustainable development but yes, making the
communities and the development, making those sustainable rather than
individual sport activities sustainable". (Tony Stark)
Whilst this point of sustainability is certainly agreed with and has been repeatedly
referenced as one of the actions which SDP needs to consider, moving away from
short term P/P it must be additionally noted that P/P naturally lend themselves
towards an individual focus even though they involve a collective of people from a
community. They tend to celebrate the successes of individuals who achieve within
that P/P as a representation of the projects own successes. Therefore and perhaps
in agreement with Natasha and Clinton it can be argued that the focus of
development should be working in a participatory manner with the collective as
opposed to individuals, especially given that SDP P/P tend to be mainly situated in
SSA. A part of the world where the Ubuntu philosophy is ubiquitous; a philosophy
which forms the basis of communal African life, (Mwaanga & Banda 2014). Indeed
Ubuntu is defined as a 'person' is only a 'person' through other 'persons' and thus an
African is only complete as a 'person' within a community and not as an individual,
(Mwaanga & Banda 2014; Ramose 1999; Bhengu 1996). Therefore community forms
the cornerstone of sub-Saharan African life and perhaps an individual focus leads
to the development of capitalistic values for the individual and thus individual
interest are placed above other interests to the detriment of the wider
71 Kola Adeosun
community, (Khorza 1994). Therefore a focus on the community is perhaps a more
constructive investment.
In truth though, given the heterogeneous nature of SDP the focus on working with
individuals or working with the community cannot be uniform and should be
decided dependant on the locality and the nature of work and what might work
best at that time. Therefore in line with Remy maybe compromise is the best
course of action here.
"So I think you ideally now, pragmatically, you have to have a combination of
realising that if you can push empowerment through individual participation,
that’s great but, at the same time, there also needs to be a consideration of the
wider group and there are those who could provide expertise and help. It’s about
education both ways round and I guess compromise is a better way to go about
things nowadays". (Remy LeBeau)
4.5. Chapter Conclusion
Several themes have emerged from this research and it was clear that SDP is a
field which requires continual investigation and further development of its
processes and practices.
Firstly the conceptualisation of development amongst the participants of this study
was determined to be more akin to the participatory world-view but due to the
extensive project-based development of SDP, carrying with it northern financing
influences smaller indigenous organisations directing their ambitions which
inevitably aligns practices of the participants with the greater international
72 Kola Adeosun
perspective of development. This has evoked more questions to how SDP can move
beyond the idea of P/P or can global southern organisations become self sufficient?
Secondly, the use of sport in development practice was questioned and whilst
participants agreed that sport can play a role in development practice, the
assumptions are that care needs to be taken when sport is considered and written
about or else false representations of sports power can be projected.
Next, the creation of eurocentrism is exposed leading to an analysis of power built
upon the framework of Lukes (1974) previously mentioned. This framework
provided the guidance to question how 'power within' is created by participants of
this study in their SDP practices leading to conclusions of more longitudinal based
research as argued that 'power within' can perhaps take decades to manifest.
Lastly, the different focus of development practice was recognised between the
participants of this study. Whilst some favour working in participation with an
individual to enhance their chances, others question the wider implications of that
approach for the greater community. Here, the conclusion was reached that
perhaps a negotiation between the two pragmatically is the best way forward.
73 Kola Adeosun
5. Chapter Five - Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations
This chapter will aim to summarise the key findings from this study and offer clear
reasoning for arriving at such conclusions. Additionally the benefits of the study
will be discussed, following on to the limitations forming a basis for future
recommendations to be considered. To finish, this chapter will review the
researchers own learning throughout the process of carrying out this study.
To begin however, it is prudent to return back to the original aim of the study
which looked to 'examine the conceptualisation of development amongst chosen
SDP experts' and to also revisit the objectives in which the study intended to
consider which were;
- To investigate the meaning and practice of development, through the
conceptualisation of 'development' experts within SDP.
- To explore the relationship of power and discourse and how it influences the
creation and transfer of knowledge within SDP.
- To identify and examine the dominating notions of development and how
they play out in SDP.
Looking at the study's aim it seems reasonable to claim that this study has
effectively addressed the conceptualisation of development amongst the chosen
experts and further to this has effectively achieved its chosen objectives albeit to
74 Kola Adeosun
varying levels of competency. As such the next section discusses a summary of the
key findings and conclusions to the study.
5.1. Summary of Key Findings
The findings suggest that the conceptualisation of development is indeed one of a
participatory nature which theoretically leads to greater successes in
development, (Robson 2000). However the findings go on to show that in reality
the process and practice of development is far more complex than that. Leading
to; conclusions that the dominating notion of development is still very much of an
international perspective due to the compression of short-term donor led projects
in the global south. This maintains issues of Eurocentrism and power and does not
adequately lead to the development of power for indigenous people. As such to
sum up two broad sections are discussed the first being, 'looking towards self
sustenance in SDP' and the second being 'building long term relationships'.
5.1.1. Looking Towards Self Sustenance in SDP
Throughout this research the concept and meaning of development within SDP has
been discussed. As a launch pad the study looked at two broad approaches to
development practice, one being the participatory conceptualisation and the other
being the international conceptualisation. Whilst the participants of this study all
readily associated closer to the participatory conceptualisation, the study's
findings show a reliance on projects influenced by northern financing to carry of
development practice in SDP. Undoubtedly as Darnell & Hayhurst (2012); Hayhurst
75 Kola Adeosun
(2009) suggest that under the rubric of SDP, those who finance projects thereby
have the power to define and categorise projects, as such this provokes questions
as to how SDP can move away from the practice of projects, or what other
approaches allow access to the indigenous to work with 'them' for attempted social
change? Perhaps, an overhaul of projects is not the immediate course of action,
but rather a focus on making indigenous organisations self sufficient, promoting
their own self interests and projects, (Long 2001). This, because southern
organisations cannot remain continually dependant on northern donors, because if
projects 'do' deliver authentic social change, they only remain as authentic drivers
of social change at the grace of someone else's charity. Therefore, if a donors
agenda changes, so may the direction of their finances, potentially leaving local
communities to their fate.
Certainly self sufficient local organisations would mean the sustainment of longer
projects than the norm reducing the ideas of short-termism associated with
current SDP projects. Secondly prolonged projects would mean the increased
possibility of reaching a greater number of people in the community, further
reducing the narrow focus of projects discussed above. Lastly, a self sufficient
organisation would conduct its own projects, choosing its own experts of SDP to
deliver their expertise instead of being chosen by the donor organisation who
require an evaluation of the project to match their parameters of success. This as
said, of course begs a further question as to how SDP can make local organisations
self sufficient? Whilst this study cannot provide an answer to that question, it can
however provide optimism in the shape of Kidd (2008) who suggests that the SDP
76 Kola Adeosun
field is still in its infancy, therefore there is still much to learn and much to
change and develop.
5.1.2. Building Long Term Relationships
According to the data, power and discourse play an influential role to the meaning
of development in SDP. 'Sport' as a site for the creation of power and the
negotiation of power where key themes which emerged within the particular frame
of reference.
Firstly the participants locate sport as a unique social entity which should have a
place in development conceptualisation, however all participants are careful to
remind us that sport is not a simple benign institution and sport must be used in
conjunction with other engines of development. Moreover the findings suggest that
care should be taken when using northern terminologies associated to sport which
may further position sport seemingly as the remedy to ameliorate poverty. As a
result the SDP field needs to be continually reflexive in its use of sport, allowing
care to be taken not to overstate its importance in the development process.
Secondly, as briefly mentioned above, northern financing of projects bring in issues
of 'whose agenda matters' as further expressed by Steve
"Sometimes in order to get money you may be doing things you don’t really want
to do". (Steve Rogers)
77 Kola Adeosun
This statement undoubtedly carries with it issues of power and manipulation. As
the findings suggest projects are created in Europe and implemented in the south,
thereby carrying with it the brand of Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism is a discourse of
SDP; discourses carry with them manifestations of power (Rossi 2004), and
therefore the question emerged how power is negotiated within SDP? The results
suggest that power is best negotiated through building long term relationships over
a period of years, which in return can manifest the 'power within' local
stakeholders and indigenous people. Hereby this study concludes that a move
towards more longitudinal research is needed to develop and maintain long term
relationships between the researcher and the community they are researching.
Longitudinal based research would also reduce the emphasis and aura placed on
sport, given that sport is viewed as an instant and short sharp cure for
underdevelopment, (Levermore & Beacom 2009).
However, this conclusion also raises important questions for the future such as,
what does longitudinal research really mean, how long should longitudinal be and
who defines that, should longitudinal research ever conclude, if so when and what
is the continual level of contact required between the researcher and the
community for this longitudinal based research to be worthwhile?
5.2. Benefits and Limitations
One of the main benefits of this study is that it made the experts of SDP the focus
of research so that the SDP field may directly hear their approach to development
practice, an act rarely practiced in the SDP field. This benefit unveils some of the
78 Kola Adeosun
commonalities and differences of development conceptualisation between
researchers, while highlighting some universal challenges to development practice,
which need to be considered for future research.
One major limitation of this study however is the number and diversity of experts
featured. Though given the size and extent of the SDP field, it is accepted that the
volume of SDP experts reflect a minority and whilst six according to Guest, Bunce
& Johnson (2006), is an acceptable number to carry out qualitative research; a
greater volume of participants, would lead to the increased diversity in
participants which may have helped more themes emerge in the research.
Another limitation of the study was the narrow focus placed on development
conceptualisation. As suggested many times development is heterogeneous,
spanning many topic areas and should rarely, if at all be reduced into two broad
approaches of conceptualisation. This reduction into two broad approaches may
have limited the theoretical growth of new vantage points to the SDP field.
5.2.1. Future Recommendations
Building from the limitations presented in the previous section, this study offers
some recommendations to conduct future research.
To start, the first limitation pointed at the limited number of participants used in
this study, which also affected diverse range of participants which could be
questioned. By diverse this study refers to the range of similarities and differences
79 Kola Adeosun
between participants such as gender and residence. For example this study
included only one female participant, whilst the conceptualisation of development
is not said to be gender specific, a greater input from female experts would have
made for an interesting comparison with their male counterparts adding another
layer to the study. Furthermore a future study with similar intentions should
consider featuring experts from global southern residences, to find out their
conceptualisation of development in comparison with experts residing within the
global north. Particularly as Mwaanga (2012) has noted that given the superior
amount of SDP leaders situated in the global south, it is surprising how little is
heard from them concerning their 'development'. In adding to this Darnell &
Hayhurst (2012) note that for continual theoretical considerations SDP would do
well to ascertain the viewpoints of scholars situated within the global south.
Consequently, future research looking to build on the platform presented by the
current study should look at including more female SDP experts and should
undeniably consider the inclusion of experts from the global south.
Secondly, although some progress has been made within this study using two broad
approaches of development to further conceptualise development from the
expert’s perspective; demonstrating once again the significance of this
investigation that contributes to the paucity of research in SDP which is aimed at
gaining expert opinion. Development conceptualisation as a whole is to vast to
limit to any particular study, as this may contribute to an altogether misleading
and overly simplified notion of what it means to develop for particular people. For
example Easterly (2013) highlights his conceptualisation of development as the
idea of developing economic and political freedoms, two areas not fully considered
80 Kola Adeosun
in this present study. Therefore a future study should look at other notions of
development, such as sustainable, political and social development and there
importance to expert conceptualisations. Given the already highlighted short-
termism associated with most SDP projects, perhaps the idea of sustainable
development provides an adequate launch-pad for future research.
5.3. Review of Researchers Own Learning
In keeping with the reflexive nature proposed throughout this study, it is
imperative that this study concludes with reflections and a review of the
researchers own learning. Throughout conducting this study the researcher has
been continually humbled by the extensive nature of development, and has
reached the realisation that studying, working or attempting to practice
development should be a humble and humbling process. Given this the researcher
has come to appreciate the heavy burden taken by, any and all who attempt
development practice, not least the participants of this study. However, without
wishing to continually repeat the same point, this researcher again stresses that
the nature of development is ‘ambiguous’, and every individual within this study,
albeit with some similarities have different connotations and conceptualisations of
development practice, which makes individual development conceptualisation
untenable. The consequences of this as an academic in SDP, is that your work,
struggles and efforts are continually placed in the spotlight in this highly
competitive market of SDP, which calls for evidenced based research which in turn
leaves researchers open to continual questioning, (Darnell 2014; Donnelly et al,
2011). This researcher of course does not object in any way to the questioning of
81 Kola Adeosun
experts and their research, especially those that supposedly impact people’s lives.
However this researcher does state again in line with Freire (1970), to remember
that those who have dedicated themselves to this line of work, at the very least
have seen the un-just order and are committed to the transformation and
therefore in line with Remy the current researcher accepts that;
"The world of development is really complicated and people have to make some
tough decisions and some of those decisions are really unpalatable, but there’s not
always an alternative" (Remy LeBeau).
82 Kola Adeosun
6. Chapter Six - References
ADAMS, A., K., HARRIS, 2014, Making Sense of the Lack of Evidence
Discourse, Power and Knowledge in the Field of Sport for Development,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Online, 27(2), pp.
140-151
AHERN, K.J., 1999, Ten Tips for Reflexive Bracketing, Health Policy &
Services, Online, 9(1), pp. 3407-3411
ALAM, M., S., LAWRENCE, R., NANDAN, 2002, Accounting for Economic
Development in the Context of Post-Colonialism: the Fijian Experience,
Journal of Accounting and Empire, Online, 15(1), pp. 135-157
ALBERT, M., 2014, Delphi Method 48 Success Secrets - 48 Most Asked
Questions on Delphi Method - What You Need To Know, London, UK,
Emereo Publishing
AMUSA, L.O., A.L., TORIOLA, D.T., GOON, 2013, The World in Turmoil:
Promotion of Peace and International Understanding Through Sport,
African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance,
Online, 19(1), pp. 220-239
83 Kola Adeosun
ANDREWS, D.L., M.D., GIARDINA, 2008, Sport Without Guarantees: Toward a
Cultural Studies that Matters, Journal of Cultural Studies, 8(4), pp. 395-
422
ANGEN, M.J., 2000, Evaluating Interpretive Inquiry: Reviewing the Validity
Debate and Opening the Dialogue, Qualitative Health Research, 10(3),
pp. 378-395
ARAT-KOC, S., 2010, New Whiteness (es) Beyond the Colour Line? Assessing
the Contradictions and Complexities of ‘Whiteness’ in the (Geo) Political
Economy of Capitalist Globalism, In S., RAZACK, M., SMITH, S.,
THOBANI, States of Race: Critical Race Feminism for the 21st Century,
pp. 147-168, Toronto, Canada, Between the Lines
ARMOUR, K., D., MacDONALD, 2012, Research Methods in Physical Education
and Youth Sport, London, UK, Routledge
ASHCROFT, B., G., GRIFFITHS, H., TIFFIN, 2013, Post-Colonial Studies: The
Key Concepts, 3rd Edition, Oxford, UK, Routledge
BAIRNER, A., 2009, Sport, Intellectuals and Public Sociology: Obstacles and
Opportunities, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Online,
44(2), pp. 115-130
84 Kola Adeosun
BAJPAL, J.N., 1990, Forecasting the Basic Inputs to Transporation Planning
at Zonal Level, London, UK, Transportation Research Board
BALE, J., M., CRONIN, 2003, Sport and Postcolonialism, Oxford: Berg.
BANDA, D., 2013, Sport and the Multisectoral Approach to HIV/AIDS in
Zambia, PhD Thesis
BANDURA, A., 1997, Self-Efficacy, The Exercise of Control, New York, US,
W.H, Freeman and Company
BARKER-RUCHTI, N., D., BARKER, S., SATTLER, M., GARBUS, U., PUHSE,
2013, Sport-‘It’s Just Healthy’: Locating Healthism within Discourses of
Social Integration, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Online,
39(5), pp. 759-77
BARRON, P.E., 2011, Educational Resources Review: Teaching International
Students, The Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
Education, 9(1), pp. 128-130
BARRY, P., C., O’CALLAGHAN, 2008, A Tool for Music Therapy Student
Clinical Practice Development, Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, Online,
17(1), pp. 55-66
85 Kola Adeosun
BEECH, I., 1999, Bracketing in Phenomenological Research, Nursing
Researcher, 6(3), pp. 35-51
BEUTLER, I., 2008, Sport Serving Development and Peace: Achieving the
Goals of the United Nations Through Sport, Journal of Sport in Society,
Culture, Commerce, Media, Politics, Online,11(4), pp. 359-369
BHENGU, M.J., 1996, Ubuntu, The Essential of Democracy, Cape Town,
South Africa, Novalise Press
BIGGAM.J., 2011, How to Succeed at Writing a Masters Dissertation,
Berkshire, UK, Open University Press
BLACK, D.R., 2010, The Ambiguities of Development: Implications for
Development Through Sport, Journal of Sport in Society, Online, 13(1),
pp. 21-129
BLACK, M., 2002. The No-Nonsense Guide to International Development,
London, UK, Verso
BLAIKIE, N., 2000, Designing Social Research, Malden, USA, Blackwell
Publishers
86 Kola Adeosun
BOURDIEU, P., 1998, Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, Stanford,
USA, Stanford University Press
Breu, B. and Peppard, J., 2001. The Participatory Paradigm for Applied
Information Systems Research, Paper at the 9th European Conference on
Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, June 27-29.
BROHM, J.M., 1978, Sport: A Prison of Measured Time, London, UK, Ink Links
BROHMAN, J., 1995, Universalism, Eurocentrism and Ideological Bias in
Development Studies: From Modernisation to Neo-liberalism, Third
World Quarterly, Online, 16(1), pp. 121-140
BRYMAN, A., 1988, Quantity and Quality in Social Research, London, UK,
Unwin Hyman Publications
CAMERON, C., 2006, ‘Happiness’ and ‘Holes’: Questions for the Future of
Development through Sport, Canadian Journal of Development Studies,
Online, 27(4), pp. 567-572
CARNE, D.M., J.M.R., MARTI, 2003, Power and Authority: The Original Vision
of Mary Parker Follet, Philosophy of Management, Online, 3(2), pp. 35-
46
87 Kola Adeosun
CASHMORE, E., 2010, Making Sense of Sport, 5th Edition, Abingdon, UK,
Routledge
Chakrabarty, D., 2002, Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of
Subaltern Studies, Chicago, University of Chicago Press
CHAWANSKY, M., 2015, You’re Juicy: Autoethnography as Evidence in Sport
for Development and Peace (SDP) Research, Qualitative Research in
Sport, Exercise and Health, Online, 7(1), pp. 1-12
CHILDS, P., P., WILLIAMS, 1997, An Introduction to Post-Colonial Theory,
London, UK, Longman
CHO, T.J., 2008, An Integrative Model of Empowerment and Individual
Performance Under Conditions of Organisational Individualism and
Collectivism in Public Sector Organisations, PhD Thesis,
CLEAVER, F., 1999, Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory
Approaches to Development, Journal of International Development,
Online, 11(1), pp. 597-612
CLOUGH, P., C., NUTBROWN, 2008, A Student's Guide to Methodology,
Second Edition, London, UK, Sage
88 Kola Adeosun
COAKLEY, J., 2001, Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies, Boston, USA,
McGraw-Hill
COAKLEY, J.J., 2003, Sport in Society; Issues and Controversies, 8th Edition,
New York, USA, McGraw-Hill
COALTER, F., 2007, A Wider Social Role for Sport: Who's Keeping the Score?
London, UK, Routledge
COALTER, F., 2013, Sport-For-Development: What Game Are We Playing?
Abingdon, UK, Routledge
CORBIN, J., A., STRAUSS, 1990, Grounded Theory Method: Procedures,
Canons and Evaluative Procedures, Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), pp. 3-
21
CRESSWELL, S., R., EKLUND, 2007, Athlete Burnout: A Longitudinal
Qualitative Study, The Sport Psychologist, Online, 21(1), pp. 1-20
CRESWELL, J., D., MILLER, 2000, Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry,
Theory into Practice, 39(3), pp. 124-130
89 Kola Adeosun
DARNELL, S.C., 2007, Playing With Race: Right to Play and the Production of
Whiteness in ‘Development Through Sport’, Journal of Sport in Society,
Online, 10(4), pp. 560-579
DARNELL, S.C., 2010a, Power, Politics and "Sport for Development and
Peace": Investigating the Utility of Sport for International Development,
Sociology of Sport Journal, Online, 21(1), pp. 54-75
DARNELL, S.C., 2010b, Sport, Race, and Bio-Politics: Encounters with
Difference in “Sport for Development and Peace” Internships, Journal of
Sport and Social Issues, 34, (4), pp. 396-401
DARNELL, S.C., 2012, Sport for Development and Peace, London, UK,
Bloomsbury
DARNELL, S.C., 2014, Orientalism Through Sport: Towards a Said-ian Analysis
of Imperialism and ‘Sport for Development and Peace’ Journal of Sport
in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, Online, 17(8), pp.
1000-1014
DARNELL, S.C., L., HAYHURST, 2012, Hegemony, Post-colonialism and Sport-
for-Development: A Response to Lindsey and Grattan, International
Journal of Sport Policy & Politics, Online, 4(1), pp. 111-124
90 Kola Adeosun
DENSCOMBE, M., 2009, Ground Rules for Social Research, London, Open
University Press
DENZIN, N., Y., LINCOLN, 2011, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research,
California, USA, Sage
DENZIN, N., Y., LINCOLN, 2011, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research,
Fourth Edition, California, USA, Sage
DENZIN, N.K., Y.S., LINCOLN, 2005, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Third Edition, California, USA, Sage
DONNELLY, P., M., ATKINSON, S., BOYLE, C., SZTO, 2011, Sport for
Development and Peace: A Public Sociology Perspective, Third World
Quarterly, 32(3), pp. 589-601
DREW, N., 2004, Creating a Synthesis of Internationality: The Role of the
Bracketing Facilitator, Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3), pp. 215-223
DUDFIELD, O., 2014, Strengthening Sport-for-Development and Peace:
National Policies and Strategies, London, UK, Commonwealth Screteriat,
pp. 1-12
91 Kola Adeosun
DZATHOR, A.Y., 2003, Sports for Peace and Development, Paper Presented
at the IIPT African Conference on Peace, Through Tourism, Dar-Es-
Salaam, Tanzania, December 7-12, 2003
EAGLETON, T., 1994. Ideology. London: Longman.
EASTERLY, W., 2007, The White Man's Burden, Oxford, UK, Oxford University
Press
EASTERLY, W., 2013, The Tyranny of Experts, Oxford, UK, Oxford University
Press
ELDER-VASS, D., 2008, Integrating Institutional, Relational, and Embodied
Structure: An Emergentist Perspective, British Journal of Sociology,
59(1), pp. 281-299
ESTEVA, G., 1992, “Development”. In SACHS, W., (Eds). The development
Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London, UK, Zeb Books, pp.
6-25
FONTANA, A., J.H., FREY, 2000, The Interview: From Structured Questions
to Negotiated Text, In N.K, DENZIN, Y.S., LINCOLN, (eds), The
Landscape of Qualitative Research, Second Edition, California, USA,
Sage
92 Kola Adeosun
FOUCAULT, M., 1980, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings 1972-1977, New York, USA, Pantheon Books
FOUCAULT, M., 1981, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, London, UK,
Penguin Books
FOUCAULT, M., J., FAUBION, 2000. Power, New York: New Press.
FREIRE, P., 1970, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, USA, Seabury Press
FREIRE, P., 1970, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, USA, Seabury
Press
FREY, J.H., D.S., EITZEN, 1991, Sport and Society, Annual Review of
Sociology, Online, 17(1), pp. 503-522
GATES, E.N., 2014, The Concept of Race" in Natural and Social Science,
London, UK, Routledge
GEARING, R., 2004, Bracketing in Research: A Typology, Qualitative Health
Research, 14(10), pp. 1429-1452
93 Kola Adeosun
GILBERT, K., W., BENNETT, 2012, Sport, Peace and Development, Illinois,
USA, Common Ground
GIRGINOV, V., 2008. Management of Sports Development as an Emerging
Field and Profession. In, V. GIRGINOV (ed), Management of Sports
Development. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, pp. 3-37.
GIULIANOTTI, R., 2004, Human Rights, Globalisation and Sentimental
Education: The Case of Sport, Sport in Society, 7(3), pp. 355-369
GIULIANOTTI, R., 2005, Sport; A Critical Sociology, Cambridge, UK, Polity
Press
GIULIANOTTI, R., 2011, Sport, Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution: A
Contextual Analysis and Modelling of the Sport, Development and Peace
Sector, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(1), pp. 207-228
GIULIANOTTI, R., 2012, Initial Promises, Social Scientific Issues and Practical
Challenges, In B., Segaert, M., Theeboom, C., Timmerman and B.,
Vanreusel, (Eds.) Sport Governance, Development and Corporate
Responsibility, New York, USA, Routledge
94 Kola Adeosun
GOMM, R., 2008, Social Research Methodology: A Critical Introduction,
Hampshire, UK Palgrave Macmillan.
GRATTON, C., I., JONES, 2010, Research Methods for Sport Studies, 2nd
Edition London, UK, Routledge
GRILLO, R.D., R.L., STIRRAT, 1997, Discourses of Development:
Anthropological Perspective, Oxford, UK, Berg
GRIX, J., 2002, Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social
Research Politics, 22(3) pp. 175-186
GUBA, E.G., Y.S., LINCOLN, 1989, Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury
Park, California, USA, Sage
GUBA, E.G., Y.S., LINCOLN, 1994, Competing Paradigms in Qualitative
Research, Theories and Issues, Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage
GUBA, E.G., Y.S., LINCOLN, 2008, Paradigmatic Controversies,
Contradictions and Emerging Confluences, In N.K, DENZIN, Y.S.,
LINCOLN, (eds), The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Third Edition,
California, USA, Sage
95 Kola Adeosun
GUEST, G., A., BUNCE, L., JOHNSON, 2006, How Many Interviews Are
Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Validity, Field
Methods, 18(1), pp. 59-82
HALL, S., 2007, The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power, In Gupta et al.
(eds), Race and racialization: Essential Readings, Canadian Scholar
Press
HAMMERSLEY, M., 1989, The Dilemma of Qualitative Methods: Herbert
Blumer and the Chicago Tradition, London, Routledge
HAMMERSLEY, M., 1992, Research and Policy, Lewes, Falmer Press
HAYHURST, L.M.C., 2009, The Power to Shape Policy: Charting Sport for
Development and Peace Policy Discourses, International Journal of
Sport Policy, 1(2), pp. 203-227
HEALY, M., C., PERRY, 2000, Comprehensive Criteria to Judge Validity and
Reliability of Qualitative Research Within the Realism Paradigm,
Qualitative Market Research – An International Journal, 3(3), pp. 118-
126
96 Kola Adeosun
HEARN, J, 2011, Domination, In DOWDING, K., (eds), Sage Encyclopaedia of
Power, London, UK, Sage
HEARN, J, 2012, Theorising Power, Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave Macmillan
HEIDEGGER, M., 1962, Being and Time, New York, USA, Harper & Row
HEINEMMAN, K., 1993, Sport in Developing Countries, In The Sports Process:
A Comparable and Developmental Approach (Eds.), E., DUNNING, J.,
MAGUIRE, R., PEARTON, pp. 139-150
HETTNE, B., 1990, Development Theory and the Three Worlds, New York,
USA, Longman Group
HETTNE, B., 1995, Development Theory and the Three Worlds, 2nd Edition,
New York, USA, Longman Group
HICKLING-HUDSON, A., R., AHLQUIST, 2003, Contesting the Curriculum in
the Schooling of Indigenous Children in Australia and the USA: from
Eurocentrism to Culturally Powerful Pedagogies, Comparative Education
Review, Online, 47(1), pp. 64-89
97 Kola Adeosun
HIRSCHMAN, A.O., 1981, Trespassing Economics to Politics and Beyond,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. 4
HOULIHAN, B., M., NICHOLSON, R., HOYE, 2010, Participation in Sport,
London, UK, Routledge
HUNJAN, R., J., PETTIT, 2011, Power: A Practical Guide for Facilitating
Social Change, Dunfermline, UK, Carniegie Trust
HUTZLER, Y., C., SHERRILL, 1999, Disability, Physical Activity, Psychological
Well-Being and Empowerment, In R., LIDOR, M., BAR-ELI (Eds), Sport
Psychology, Linking Theory and Practice, Morgantown, US: Fitness
Information Technology
HYLTON, K., 2013, Sport Development, Policy, Process and Practice, Third
Edition, Abingdon, UK, Routledge
HYLTON, K., P., BRAMHAM, 2008, Sport Development: Policy, Process and
Practice, 2nd Edition, Abingdon, UK, Routledge
HYLTON, K., P., BRANHAM, D., JACKSON, M., NESTI, 2001, Sport
Development: Policy, Process and Practice, New York, USA, Routledge
98 Kola Adeosun
JARVIE, G., 1991, Sport, Racism and Ethnicity, London, UK, Falmer Press
JARVIE, G., J.A., MAGUIRE, 1994, Sport and Leisure in Social Thought,
London, UK, Routledge
JONES, J.D., A.A., LAVERTY, C., MILLET, A.G., MAINOUS, A., MAJEED, 2013,
Rising Obesity-Related Hospital Admissions Among Children and Young
People in England: National Time Trends Study, PLoS ONE, 8(6)
JOOTUN, D., G., McGHEE, G.R., MARLAND, 2009, Reflexivity: Promoting
Rigour in Qualitative Research, Nursing Standard, 23(23), pp. 42-46
JOSEPH, J., J.M., ROBERTS 2003, Realism Discourse and Deconstruction,
London, UK, Routledge
JUSTESEN, L., N., MIK-MEYER, 2012, Qualitative Research Methods in
Organisation Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark, Hans Reitzels Verlag
KAY, T., 2011, Development Through Sport? Sport in Support of Female
Empowerment in Delhi, India, In B., HOULIHAN & M., GREEN (Eds.),
Handbook of Sports Development, London, UK, Routledge, pp. 308-322
99 Kola Adeosun
KEIM, M., 2006, Sport as Opportunity for Community Development and Peace
Building in South Africa, University of Western Cape, Online, 1(1), pp.
1-11
KHORZA, R., 1994, African Humanism, Diepkloof, South Africa: Ehkaya
Promotions
KIDD, B., 2008, A New Social Movement: Sport for Development and Peace,
Journal of Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics,
Online, 11(4), pp. 370-380
KIIKKALA, S.M., I., ÅSTEDT-KURKI, 2015, Bracketing as a Skill in Conducting
Unstructured Qualitative Interviews, Nurse Researcher, 22(4), pp. 8-12
KING, J. A., 1995, Involving Practitioners in Evaluation Studies: How Viable
is Collaborative Evaluation in Schools? In J.B. COUSINS, L.M. EARL (eds.).
Participatory Evaluation in Education: Studies in Evaluation Use and
Organisational Learning, London, Falmer
KIRK, D., 2013, Empowering Girls and Women through Physical Education
and Sport - Advocacy Brief, Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2012
100 Kola Adeosun
KIRK, J., M., MILLERS, 1986, Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research,
Los Angeles, USA, Sage
KOTHARI, U., M., MINOGUE, 2002, Development Theory and Practice:
Critical Perspectives, Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave
KUHN, T.S., 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition,
Chicago, USA, The University of Chicago Press
KVALE, S., 1996, InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing, London, UK, Sage
KVALE, S., S., BRINKMAN, 2009, InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative
Research Interviewing, California, USA, Sage
LAPAN, S., 2012, Qualitative Research: An Introduction to Methods and
Design. San Fransisco, USA, Jossey-Bass
LEAVY, P., 2014, The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, Oxford, UK,
Oxford University Press
LEVERMORE, R., 2008a, Sport: A New Engine of Development? Journal of
Progress in Development Studies, Online, 8(2), pp. 183-190
101 Kola Adeosun
LEVERMORE, R., 2008b, Sport-in-International Development: Time to Treat it
Seriously? Brown Journal of World Affairs, 14(2), pp. 55-66
LEVERMORE, R., A., BEACOM, 2009, Sport and International Development,
Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave Macmillan
LEVERMORE, R., A., BEACOM, 2012, Reassessing Sport-for-Development:
Moving Beyond 'Mapping the Territory', International Journal of Sport
Policy and Politics, Online, 4(1), pp. 125-137
LEWIS, D., D., MOSSE, 2006, Encountering Order and Disjuncture:
Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives on the Organisation of
Development, Oxford Development Studies, Online, 34(1), pp. 1-13
LI, T., 2007, The Will to Improve: Govermentality, Development, and the
Practice of Politics, Durham, USA, Duke University Press
LINDSEY, I., A., GRATTAN, 2012, An ‘International Movement’? Decentring
Sport-for-Development, within Zambian Communities, International
Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, Online, 4(1), pp. 91-110
102 Kola Adeosun
LINDSEY, I., D., BANDA, 2011, Sport and the Fight Against HIV/AIDS in
Zambia: A 'Partnership Approach', International Review for the
Sociology of Sport, Online, 46(1), pp. 90-107
LIPS, H., 1991, Women, Men and Power, California, USA, Mayfeld
LONG, J, 2007, Researching Leisure, Sport and Tourism – The Essential Guide
Sage Publications, London, UK, Sage
LONG, N., 2001, Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives, London, UK,
Routledge
LOOMBA, A. 1998, Colonialism-Postcolonialism, London, UK, Routledge
LUKE, T.W., 1989, Screens of Power: Ideology, Domination and Resistance in
Informational Society, Chicago, USA, University of Illinois Press
Lukes, S., 1974, Power, London, UK, Macmillan
LUKES, S., 1986, Power: Readings in Social and Political Theory, Oxford, UK,
Blackwell
103 Kola Adeosun
LUKES, S., 1993, Three Distinctive Views of Power Compared, In HILL, M.,
(eds), The Policy Process: A Reader, Hemel Hempstead, UK, Harvester
Wheatsheaf, pp. 51-58
MACK, L., 2010, The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research,
Polyglossia, Online, 19(1), pp. 5-11
MACK, N., C., WOODSONG, K.M., MACQUEEN, G., GUEST, E., NAMEY, 2011,
Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide, North
Carolina, USA, Family Health International
MacPHAIL, A., D., KIRK, D., ELEY, 2003, Listening to Young Peoples Voices:
Youth Sport Leaders Advice on Facilitating Participation in Sport,
European Physical Education Review, 9(1), pp. 57-73
MALIK, K., 1996, The Meaning of Race: Race, History and Culture in Western
Society, New York, USA, NYU Press
MANDELA, N.R., 1995, Long Walk to Freedom; The Autobiography of Nelson
Mandela, London, UK, Little, Brown and Company
104 Kola Adeosun
MANGAN, J., 2006, Christ and the Imperial Playing Fields: Thomas Hughe’s
Ideological Heirs Empire, The International Journal of the History of
Sport, 23(5), pp. 777-804
MANNING, K., 1997, Authenticity in Constructivist Inquiry: Methodological
Considerations without Prescription, Qualitative Inquiry, 3(1), pp. 93-
115
MARKULA, P., B.C., GRANT, J., DENISON 2001, Qualitative Research and
Aging and Physical Activity: Multiple Ways of Knowing, Journal of Aging
and Physical Activity, 9(1), pp. 245-264
MARKULA, P., M., SILK, 2011, Qualitative Research for Physical Culture,
Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave Macmillan
MATTHEWS, S., 2008, The Role of the Privileged in Responding to Poverty:
Perspectives Emerging from the Post-Development Debate, Third World
Quarterly, 29(6), PP. 1035-1049
MAXWELL, N., 1984, From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution in the Aims
and Methods of Science, Oxford, UK, Blackwell
105 Kola Adeosun
McEWAN, C., 2002, Post-Colonialism, In DESAI, V., R.B., POTTER, (eds), The
Companion to Development Studies, London, UK, Hodder Education
McEWAN, C., 2008, Post-colonialism and Development, London, UK,
Routledge
McGEE, R., 2002, Participating in Development in KOTHARI, U., M.,
MINOGUE, (eds), Development Theory and Practice: Critical
Perspectives, Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave
McKAY, J., 2004, Modernisation and Beyond, In, Kingsbury et al. 2004, Key
Issues in Development, Basingstoke, UK Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 45-66
MCKAY, J., 2008. Reassessing development theory: Modernization and
beyond. In D., KINGSBURY, J., McKAY, J. HUNT, M. McGILLIVIRAY, & M.
CLARKE (Eds.), International development: Issues and challenges (pp.
51–73). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
McMICHAEL, P., 2010, Contesting Development; Critical Struggles for Social
Change, New York, USA, Routledge
MERRIAM, S.B., 2009, Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation, San Francisco, California, John Wiley & Sons
106 Kola Adeosun
MILES, M.B., A.M., HUBERMAN, 1984, Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Sourcebook of New Methods, California, USA, Sage
MILLS, S., 1997, Discourses: The New Critical Idiom, London, UK, Routledge
MISENER, L., S., DARCY, K., GILBERT, D. LEGG, 2013, Beyond Olympic
Legacy: Understanding Paralympics‟ Legacy Through a Thematic
Analysis, Journal of Sport Management, 27, pp. 329-341
MORODI, L., 2011, The Reconstruction, Development and Transformation of
South African Diversified Society through Sport: Cherished Ideals of
Nelson Mandela and their Challenges, The International Journal of Sport
and Society, 2(3), pp. 11-21
MORROW, R., 1994, Critical Theory and Methodology, California, USA, Sage
MORROW, S., 2005, Quality and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research in
Counselling Psychology, Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52 (2), pp.
250-260
MOSSE, D., 2004, Is Good Policy Un-Implementable? Reflections on the
Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice, Development and Change,
35(4), pp. 639-671
107 Kola Adeosun
MWAANGA, O., 2010, Sport for Addressing HIV/AIDS: Explaining Our
Convictions, LSA Newsletter, 85(1), pp. 61-67
MWAANGA, O., 2012, Understanding and Improving Sport Empowerment for
People Living with HIV/AIDS in Zambia, PHD Thesis
MWAANGA, O., D., BANDA, 2014, A Post-Colonial Approach to Understanding
Sport-Based Empowerment of People Living With HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in
Zambia: The Case of the Cultural Philosophy of Ubuntu, Journal of
Disability & Religion, Online, 18(2), pp. 173-191
MWAANGA, O., K., ADEOSUN, (in Press), The Critical Participatory Paradigms
and its Implications in Y.V., AUWEELE AND K., PETRY, Ethics in Sport -
The Future of Sport Imagined, Leuven, Routledge
MWAANGA, O., K., MWANSA, 2013, Indigenous Discourses in Sport-for-
Development and Peace: A Case Study of the Ubuntu Cultural Philosophy
in EduSport Foundation, Zambia, In N., SCHULENKORF, D., ADAIR, (eds),
Global Sport-for-Development: Critical Perspectives, Basingstoke,
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 115-133
108 Kola Adeosun
MWAANGA, O., S.D., PRINCE, In Press, Sport Empowerment in an SDP
Context
NEDERVEEN-PIETERSE, J., 2010, Development Theory, Second Edition,
London, UK, Sage
NELSON, N., S., WRIGHT, 1995, Power and Participatory Development:
Theory and Practice, London, UK, Intermediate Technology Publications
NICHOLLS, S., A.R., GILES, C., SETHNA, 2011, Perpetuating the ‘Lack of
Evidence’ Discourse in Sport for Development: Privileged Voices,
Unheard Stories and Subjugated Knowledge, International Review for
the Sociology of Sport, Online, 46(3), pp. 249-264
NJELESANI, D.L., 2012, Implementing Preventive Education about HIV/AIDS
through Physical Education in Zambia: The Response of Teachers, PhD
Thesis
OLIGA, J.C., 1988, Methodological Foundations of Systems Methodologies,
Systemic Practice and Action Research, Online, 1(1), pp. 87-112
OMAR, S.M., 2012, Rethinking Development from a Post-Colonial
Perspective, Journal of Coflictology, Online, 3(1), pp. 42-49
109 Kola Adeosun
ONDRIK, R.S., 1999, Participatory Approaches to National Development
Planning, Poverty and Social Development papers, Online, 6(1), pp. 1-15
ORTLIPP, M., 2008, Keeping and Using Reflective Journals in the Qualitative
Research Process, The Qualitative Report, Online, 13(4), pp. 695-705
PARFITT, T., 2002, The End of Development? Modernity, Post-Modernity and
Development, London, UK, Pluto Press
PATTON, M.Q., 1987, How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation,
California, Sage
PATTON, M.Q., 2002, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Third
Edition, California, USA, Sage
PLOYHART, R.E., R.J., VANDENBERG, 2010, Longitudinal Research: The
Theory, Design, and Analysis of Change, Journal of Management,
Online, 36(1), pp. 94-120
PLUMMER, K., 2005, Critical Humanism and Queer Theory: Living with
Tensions in N.K., Denzin and Y.S., Lincoln, (Eds), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research 3rd Edition, Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage, pp. 357-
374
110 Kola Adeosun
PRINGLE, R., 2007, Social Theory for Coaches: A Foucauldian Reading of One
Athlete’s Poor Performance – Commentary. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 2(1), pp. 385-393
RAIL, G., 2002. Postmodernism and Sports Studies. In, J. MAGUIRE, K.
YOUNG (eds). Theory, Sport and Society, Oxford, UK, JAI, pp. 179-207.
RAMAZANOGLU, C., 1993. Feminism and the Contradictions of Oppression.
London, UK, Routledge
RAMOSE, M.B., 1999, African Philosophy through Ubuntu, Harare, Zimbabwe,
Mondi Books
READ, L., J., BINGHAM, 2008, Preface, In R., LEVERMORE, A., BEACOM,
(Eds.), Sport and International Development, Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. xiii-xix
RIST, G., 2002, The History of Development; From Western Origins to Global
Faith, London, UK, Zed Books
RIST, G., 2014, The History of Development; From Western Origins to Global
Faith, 4th Edition, London, UK, Zed Books
111 Kola Adeosun
RITCHIE, B.W., P., BURNS, C., PALMER, 2005, Tourism Research Methods:
Integrating Theory with Practice, Oxford, London, CABI
ROBSON, C., 2000, Small-Scale Evaluation; Principles and Practice, London,
UK, Sage
ROSSI, B., 2004, Revisiting Foucauldian Approaches: Power Dynamics in
Development Projects, Journal of Development Studies, Online, 40(6),
pp. 1-29
RUDESTAM, K.E., R.R., NEWTON, 2007, Surviving Your Dissertation; A
Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process, Third Edition, California,
USA, Sage
SACHS, J., 2005, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time,
New York, USA, Penguin
SAID, E., 1978, Orientalism, London, UK, Routledge
SALDANA, J., 2003, Longitudinal Qualitative Research: Analyzing Change
through Time, California, USA, Altamira Press.
112 Kola Adeosun
SAUNDERS, M., P., LEWIS, A., THORNHILL, 2009, Research Methods for
Business Students, Fifth Edition, Edinburgh, UK, Pearson
SAUNDERS, M., P., LEWIS, A., THORNHILL, 2012, Research Methods for
Business Students, Sixth Edition, Edinburgh, UK, Pearson
SCHULENKORF, N., J., SUGDEN, D., BURDSEY, 2014, Sport for Development
and Peace as Contested Terrain: Place, Community, Ownership,
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, Online, 6(3), pp. 371-
387
SCHUURMAN, F.J., 1993, New Directions in Development Theory, London,
UK, Zed Books
SHARP, J., J., BRIGGS, 2006, Post-Colonialism and Development: New
Dialogues? Geographical Journal, Online, 172(2), pp. 6-9
SHERRILL, C., 1997, Disability Sport, Identity and Involvement in Sport and
Exercise, In K.R., Fox (Eds), The Physical Self, From Motivation to Well-
Being, Champaign, US, Human Kinetics
SHOHAT, E., R., STAM, 1994, Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and
the Media, London, UK, Routledge
113 Kola Adeosun
SILVERMAN, D., 2013, Doing Qualitative Research; A Practical Handbook, 4th
Edition, London, UK, Sage
SILVERMAN, D., 2014, Interpreting Qualitative Data, California, USA, Sage
SMITH, J.A., 2008, Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research
Methods, 2nd Edition, London, UK, Sage
SMITH, L.T., 1999, Decolonising Methodologies; Research and Indigenous
Peoples, London, UK, Zed Books
SMITH, L.T., 2009, Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indeginous
Peoples, Second Edition, London, UK, Zed Books.
SPAAIJ, R. 2011, Sport and social mobility, New York: Routledge.
SPAAIJ, R., R., JEANES, 2012, Education for Social Change? A Freirean
Critique of Sport for Development and Peace, Journal of Physical
education and Sport Pedagody, 18 (4), pp. 442-457
SPRENKLE, D.H., F.P., PIERCY, 2005, Research Methods in Family Therapy,
UK, Surrey, Guildford Press
114 Kola Adeosun
STENBACKA, C., 2001, Qualitative Research Requires Quality Concepts of its
Own, Management Decision, Online, 39(7), pp. 551-555
STEWART, B., 1989, The Nature of Sport Under Capitalism and its
Relationship to the Capitalist Labour Process, Sporting Traditions,
Online, 6(1), pp. 43-61
STRAUSS, A., J., CORBIN, 1998, Basic of Qualitative Research, Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, California, USA, Sage
SUGDEN, J., 2010, Critical Left-Realism and Sport Interventions in Divided
Societies, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45(1), pp.
258-272
SYLVESTER, C., 1999, Development Studies and Post-Colonial Studies:
Disparate Tales of the ‘Third World’, Third World Quaterly, 20(4), 703-
721
TADROS, N., 2010, Advocacy: People’s Power and Participation, People’s
Advocacy, Virginia, USA
TAYLOR, P., J., RICHARDSON, A. YEO, I., MARSH, K., TROBE, A.,
PILKINGTON, 1996, Sociology in Focus, Bath, UK, The Bath Press
115 Kola Adeosun
TOMLINSON, A., 1998, Power, Domination, Negotiation and resistance in
Sport Cultures, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 22(3), pp. 235-240
TORNGREN, S., 2012, Methodological Reflections on Being East Asian
Researcher Researching the White Majority, Graduate Journal of Social
Science, Online, 9(1), pp. 21-29
TUFFORD, L., P., NEWMAN, 2010, Bracketing in Qualitative Research,
Qualitative Social Work, Online, 11(1), pp. 80-96
UNDP, 2004, Forging a Global South: UN Day for South-South Cooperation,
New York, USA,
UNITED NATIONS, 2014a, Why Sport, Online, (28/05/2015), Available at:
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sport/home/sport
VENEKLASEN, L., V., MILLER, 2002, Power and Empowerment, PLA Notes,
Online, 43(1), pg. 39-41
VICTORIA, L., 2007, Making Development Geography, London, UK, Hodder
Education
WALLIMAN, N., 2001, Research Methods, London, UK, Routledge
116 Kola Adeosun
WALLIMAN, N., 2005, Your Research Project, 2nd Edition, London, UK, Sage
WALTERS, P., 2009, Qualitative Archiving: Engaging With Epistemological
Misgivings, Australian Journal of Social Issue, Online, 4(3), pp. 309-320
WEISS, C., 1997, How Can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway,
Journal of Evaluation Review, Online, 21(4), pp. 501-524
WILLIS, K., 2005, Theories and Practices of Development, London, UK,
Routledge
WOODWARD, D., A., SIMMS, 2007, Growth is Failing the Poor: The
Unbalanced Distribution of the Benefits and Costs of Global Economic
Growth, In JOMO, K.S., J., BAUDOT (eds), Flat World, Big Gaps, pp.
130-158, New York, USA, Zed Books
YOUNG, C.H., K.L., SAVOLA, E., PHELPS, 1991, Inventory of Longitudinal
Studies in the Social Sciences, Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage
YOUNG, R. 2003, Postcolonialism, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
117 Kola Adeosun
ZIMMERMAN, M.A., 1995, Psychological Empowerment: Issues and
Illustrations, American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), pp.
581-599
118 Kola Adeosun
7. Chapter Seven - Appendix
This section is a comprehensive chapter containing all additional research material
mentioned in the study. This chapter contains eleven specific attachments, all
which have been mentioned in the study previously.
119 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.1. Letter of Introduction
Dear
My name is Kola Adeosun and I am an MA student studying sport and development
under Dr. Oscar Mwaanga. I am looking to conduct research into the
conceptualisation of development amongst Sport-For-Development and Peace,
academics and experts. As experts you have a crucial role in the conceptualisation
of development discourses within SDP and my aim is to try to better understand
your conceptualisations. The below details the project title, rationale and
proposed questions for the semi-structured interviews.
Researcher:
Kola Adeosun
kola.adeosun@solent.ac.uk/adeosunkola@gmail.com
07584243227
Skype - Skype: kola.adeosun1
Project Title:
"Conceptualising the Discourse of Development amongst Theorist within Sport-for-
Development and Peace"
Rationale:
"The rationale for this study is, given that development is a term without a simple
definition the idea of development within SDP is often assumed but rarely
critiqued, therefore it is important to question those at the forefront of the
‘development’ process within SDP to gain insights into their ideas of what it
means to 'develop'"
120 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.2. List of Millennium Development Goals
Below is the Eight United Nations Millennium Goals as detailed in Easterly (2007);
(UNDP 2000).
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development
121 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.3. Reflexive Journal
Whilst the whole reflexive journal is not documented, this appendix provides a
summary of specific areas in which the researcher continually reflected upon and
details their thoughts and (pre) suppositions in this area. Firstly a researcher
writing on a topic without a sustained professional or personal history should detail
a reflexive journal prior to the research process because it raises the researcher's
awareness of the topic, especially in continued daily life and through research
duration, (Chawansky 2015; Tufford & Newman 2010; Barry & O'Callaghan 2008;
Ortlipp 2008; Ahern 1999). The major aspects to explore once writing a reflexive
journal are usually the researcher's reasons for undertaking the research,
hypotheses on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and geographical location. Further to
this the power hierarchy of the researcher within the research must be reflected
upon, potential conflicts and disparity of thoughts with research participants and
whether the researcher chooses to write in the first or third person, (Tufford &
Newman 2010). These underlying areas have to be continually reflected upon
during the research process to therefore bracket (not remove) preconceptions. The
table below provides summary of each preconception in particular areas, which
were continually addressed during the process of research and data collection.
122 Kola Adeosun
Area (Pre) Supposition
Reasons for Research Whilst the researcher does not consider himself a global southern researcher, the researchers heritage and previous residence in what might be deemed as a global southern country influenced greatly the reason for research. Therefore it was important for the researcher to manage a pre-supposition of feeling they understood development from a global southern perspective or what development should be.
Hypothesis on Gender The preconceptions on gender where as such that the researcher believed that the female gender would perhaps have conceptualisation closer to reciprocal forms of development which gave a mutually beneficial role to both parties.
Hypothesis on Age The researcher felt that the older the participant the more their conceptualisation would be linked to the international conceptualisations of development.
Hypothesis on Race The preconception on race again similar to the gendered belief was that 'black' experts would conceptualise development as more of a bottom up process originating from within communities in a participatory manner.
Geographical Location It was believed that the geographical location of researchers greatly affects their conceptualisation, the researcher readily believed those residing in the traditional global north would perhaps lean towards a more international or postcolonial conceptualisation of development.
Researcher Power The researchers power in this research whilst not underestimated, given the positions of research participants, the researcher felt power often lied with the interviewees as they are the experts in their particular areas and as such power lies with them,
Conflict of Thought It was recognised that one or several participants may articulate thoughts which equate to the polar opposite of the researchers world view, but in recognising this possibility the researcher needs to allow all participants to articulate their realities as it's created in the subjective human mind.
First of Third Person Writing The researcher chooses to write in the third person as the researcher believes this gives the best flexibility to the study and believes that a first person account seems too much like personal point of views.
123 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.4. Informed Consent Form
I, Mr. Kola Adeosun, who is an MA researcher at Southampton Solent University,
has requested my participation in this research study. The title of the research is:
Conceptualising the Discourse of Development amongst Theorist within Sport-For-
Development and Peace.
Circle Yes or No, when requested
- I have been informed that the purpose of the research is in two parts. Firstly, it
aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the understanding of development
within SDP experts, and secondly the study aims to add to the theoretical area of
development in order to try and reduce its ambiguities, (yes or no).
- My participation involves one to one semi-structured interviews. The interviews
are scheduled to last approximately between thirty (30) and forty (40) minutes.
- I recognize that there are no anticipated risks or distress to me if I agree to
participate in the study (yes or no).
- I understand that the possible benefits of my participation will include a better
conceptualisation of how SDP contributes to the development process.
- I understand that the results of the research study may be published but my
name or identity will not be revealed and an appropriate pseudonym will be used
therefore once data has been transcribed there will be no possibility of connecting
individuals to their profiles (yes or no).
- I have been advised that the research does not involve more than minimal risk.
The interviews will be conducted in a comfortable and safe place identified by the
participants (yes or no).
124 Kola Adeosun
- I have been made aware that I will not be rewarded or compensated for my
participation (yes or no).
- I have been informed that any questions I have concerning the research study or
my participation in it, before or after my consent, will be answered by the
investigator Mr. K. Adeosun on the following contact details: (yes or no)
Tel: +44 7584243227
Email: kola.adeosun@solent.ac.uk
Postal Address: 39 Blackbushe Close
Southampton
SO16 8HH
UK
- I have read the above information. The nature, risks, demands and possible
benefits of the project have been explained to me. I understand what is expected
of me and what I expect of the researcher. I also understand that I can discontinue
from the research process at anytime and I can withdraw my consent at any time
(yes or no).
In signing this consent form, I am not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies.
I require a copy of this consent form (yes/no).
Participant‘s Signature……………………………………..Date………………
- I certify that I have explained to the above individual the nature, purpose, risks
and the possible benefits associated with participating in this research study. I
have also answered any questions that have been raised, (yes or no).
- I, Kola Adeosun will provide the participant a copy of the signed consent
document if they have requested it (yes or no).
Signature of investigator……………………………………date………………
125 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.5. Semi-Structured Interview Template
Title of Study: Conceptualising the Discourse of Development amongst Theorist within Sport-For-Development and Peace Spirit of the Interview Guide: The guide is simply a guide: It is not intended to be strictly followed; it is intended as an index of topics that should be discussed during the planned interviews. The interviewer will attempt to assist narratives by asking for tangible illustrations and examples. Language: The questions will be framed in the English language in a level which is easy to understand for all participants. Organisation and Coverage of Topics in the Interview: No one interview could possibly aspire to cover all topics in the interview guide, but this interview guide is separated into three broad areas alongside personal data to be given by each participant. I. Personal data
II. The General Idea of Development.
III. Development Within SDP.
IV. Power & Knowledge The above areas correspond approximately to the organisation of interviews;
however the interviews may not follow the above sequence exactly. Depending on
the responses of participants, the investigator might link responses to questions
from another category that has not yet been addressed. However all interviews
will begin with each participant given personal data about themselves (Section I).
Below details the range of questions which will be used to guide the structure of the interview with each participant. The length of interviews will be determined mainly by the nature of and experience of participants and their willingness to discuss and share.
126 Kola Adeosun
I. Personal Data 1. Name. 2. Age 3. Residence 4. Profession 5. Years within the field of SDP? II. The General Idea of Development 1. What does it mean for you to develop? Prompts - Employment, Social Change, Improved Health Care, Specific Ideas, Challenges with development, general consensus, economic development, poverty, struggle 2. Many see development occurring within different aspects such as Participatory, Sustainable, Individual, Economic, International, Community, are these aspects important for you? If so why? If not, why not? Are some more important than others? Do you try and ensure that certain aspects emerge in your research? 3. In your own words were do you locate the locus of development? Prompts - UN Offices, Origins of Projects/Research 4. Where do you locate yourselves? Prompts - Categorisations (Global North etc). Actors/Learners etc. 5. In your own words within development who is developing who? Prompts - Is it processes which all involved are learning or is knowledge inextricably going one way? III. Development Within SDP
1. In your general conceptualisation of development, does this development occur
within SDP?
If so how?
127 Kola Adeosun
If not, why, what is SDP missing?
2. If this development did occur within SDP, how long should it take?
Prompts - Can development occur in a set time? Has this just triggered it? Can
development be measurable? Or on going?
3. What is important for you when you carry out SDP research is it working with
the community and people you are researching or determining what the needs of
that community are?
Prompts - Knowledge, who's knowledge, indigenous knowledge
4. How do you really see sport contributing to the development process? - Why do you believe that many developmentalists do not trust sport?
IIII. Power & Knowledge
1. Is power an important ingredient in SDP and the process of development?
- What is power? Can it be negotiated, if so how?
2. Do you encourage the use of 'indigenous' sport and indigenous' knowledge in the
process of SDP,?
- Is indigenous knowledge important?
- If so, can you give an example?
- If not, why not?
3. Do you believe that your position privileges you to develop knowledge for
others?
- If so how authentic do you believe that knowledge is?
- If not why not?
4. Do you try to ensure that your research is carried out equally with your research
participants?
- How do you ensure this, can you give examples?
5. Is there anything else you would like to share?
128 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.6. Differences in Qualitative and Quantitative Research
The difference between qualitative and quantitative research in the conventional
sense is shown below and is adapted from Silverman (2014); Justesen & Mik-Meyer
(2012); Hammersley (1992).
Quantitative Research Qualitative Research
Generates data that allows numerical Analysis Describes phenomena in context
Uses statistical calculations Interprets processes and meanings
Uses statistical software and pre-tested scales Uses theoretically based concepts
Seeks explanations and correlations Seeks 'Understanding'
Uses Numbers Uses Words
Concerned with behaviour Concerned with meanings
Begins with hypotheses Induces hypotheses from data
Generalisations Case studies
129 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.7. The Delphi Qualifying Criteria
The Delphi qualifying criteria has been adapted from Sprenkle & Piercy (2005) and
all respondents of to the particular study had to meet at least four of the five
areas in order to qualify for the present study as 'experts'.
Criterions
1. Respondents have published at least two articles, books, chapters on SDP.
2. Respondents have at least five years experience in SDP.
3. Respondents have at least five years experience within the academic field of
SDP.
4. Respondents have made at least one presentation at conferences regarding SDP.
5. Respondents hold a qualifying doctorate in the field of general development.
130 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.8. Individual Participant Attributes
Pseudonyms Gender Education Level
1st Language Residence Years within SDP
Vocation
Natasha Romanoff
F PhD English Australia 9 Senior Lecturer in SDP
Clinton Barton M PhD Other Norway 13 Professor of Sport Sociology
Remy LeBeau M PhD English Hong Kong 8 Associate Director
Tony Stark M PhD English United Kingdom 9 Lecturer in Sport Policy and Development
Steve Rogers M PhD English Northern Ireland 18 Visiting Professor
Bruce Banner M PhD Other United Kingdom 12 Senior Lecturer in SDP
131 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.9. Comparison of Common Research Philosophies, Adapted from (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009)
Positivism Realism Interpritivism Pragmatism
Ontology: The researcher's
view of the nature of
reality or being
External, objective and
independent of social actors.
Objective. Exists
independent of human
thoughts or knowledge of
their existence but
interpreted through social
conditioning(critical realism)
Socially constructed,
subjective, may change,
multiple.
External, multiple, view
chosen to best enable
answering of research
question.
Epistemology: The
researcher's view regarding
what constitutes
acceptable knowledge
Only observable phenomena
can provide credible data,
facts. Focus on causality
Observable phenomena
provide credible data, facts
insufficient data means
inaccuracies in sensations
(direct realism).
Subjective meanings and
social phenomena. Focus
upon the details of situation,
a reality behind these
details subjective meanings
motivating actions.
Either or both observable
phenomena and subjective
meanings can provide
acceptable knowledge
dependent upon the
research question.
Axiology: The researcher's
view of role of values of
research
Research is undertaken in a
value-free way, researcher
is independent of the data
and maintains an objective
stance.
Research is value laden; the
researcher is biased by
world views, cultural
experiences and upbringing.
Research is value bound, the
researcher is part of what is
being researched, cannot be
separated and so will be
subjective.
Values play a large role in
interpreting results, the
researcher adopting both
objective and subjective
points of view.
Data collection techniques
most often used
Highly structured, large
samples, quantitative but
can use qualitative
Methods chosen must fit the
subject matter, quantitative
or qualitative.
Small samples, in-depth
investigations qualitative.
Mixed or multiple method
designs quantitative and
qualitative.
132 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.10. Non-Probability Sampling Techniques, Adapted from (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2009)
Sample Type Likelihood of Sample Being Representative
Types of Research in Which Useful
Relative Costs Control over Sample Contents
Quota Reasonable to high, although dependent on selection of quota variables
Where costs constrained or data needed very quickly so an alternative to probability sampling
Moderately high to reasonable
Relatively high
Purposive Low although dependent on researcher's choices: extreme case Heterogeneous Homogenous Critical Case
Where working with very small samples Focus: unusual or special Focus: Key themes Focus: in-depth Focus: importance of case, Illustrative
Reasonable Reasonable
Snowball Low, but cases will have characteristics desired
Where difficulties in identifying cases
Reasonable Quite Low
Self Selection Low, but cases self-selected
Where exploratory research needed
Low Low
Convenience Very Low Where very little variation in population
Low Low
133 Kola Adeosun
Appendix 7.11. Ethics Release Form
134 Kola Adeosun
135 Kola Adeosun
top related