Fred Coalter

699 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
699
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Tendency towards functionalism Confuse theoretical possibilities with inevitable outcomes No negative outcomes
  • Assumptions: Such impacts /outcomes are inevitable Apparent theoretical coherence of these assumptions – little real research/outcome taken for granted Based on often unacknowledged/poorly articulated theories of (e.g.) crime/ educational attainment
  • Tendency towards functionalism Confuse theoretical possibilities with inevitable outcomes No negative outcomes
  • Fred Coalter

    1. 1. The road(s) ahead
    2. 2. Outputs: opportunities  Sporting Inclusion Traditional SD/equity/target groups  Sporting Outcomes Skills/competences/rules/ethics   Individual impacts P ersonal/social development/gender attitudes Sport-for-Development: a brief overview   Individual outcomes Behaviours/relationships   ‘ Community’ outcomes Social cohesion/reduced conflict  Theory of change  Theory of change  Theory of change Sport plus?
    3. 3. So, what i s this game? <ul><li>Physical fitness/health </li></ul> Personality/psychological development Self-efficacy/confidence/self-esteem/ locus of control ‘empowerment ’ <ul><ul><li>Structural/process properties  Presumed o utcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mental health/psychological well-being </li></ul><ul><li>Anxiety/ stress </li></ul><ul><li>Socio-psychological </li></ul><ul><li>Empathy/tolerance/co-operation/social skills </li></ul> Sociological Community identity/coherence/ integration Employability   Reduced Crime Education Drug use Sexual behaviour    Social cohesion Social capital Direct effects Indirect outcomes Necessary condition  sufficient conditions
    4. 4. Self- efficacy [resilience] People's beliefs about their capabilities to influence immediate events that affect their lives. If I can't do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can. Planning, implementing and persistence Self-esteem Person 's overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth ‘ I am a good person…as good as anyone else’ Fatalism The extent to which can influence what happens to us in life Extent to which events are predetermined and unalterable. ‘ people like me’ ….’education is of little use’ A few brief definitions Social efficacy Self-confidence about social skills in personal relationships
    5. 5. Outputs: opportunities  Sporting Inclusion Traditional SD/equity/target groups  Sporting Outcomes Skills/competences/rules/ethics   Individual impacts P ersonal/social development/gender attitudes Sport-for-Development: a brief overview   Individual outcomes Behaviours/relationships   ‘ Community’ outcomes Social cohesion/reduced conflict  Theory of change  Theory of change  Theory of change Sport plus?
    6. 6. Sport Magic box; social vaccine   Mechanisms, processes, experiences Necessary conditions  sufficient conditions Families of programmes  families of mechanisms Not ‘sport’  process is all Not ‘sport’  sport plus .is it even sport? Causation is contingent……………      ‘ Sport’ presumed to have causal powers  Closed system: medical/treatment model  Measure ‘outcomes’ It ‘s not what you do, but the way that you do it.
    7. 7. Self- efficacy Verbal persuasion Imitation and modelling Physiological arousal Performance Sources of perceived self - efficacy Beliefs about capabilities to influence events that affect their lives. “ If I can’t do a job first time, I keep on trying until I can”
    8. 8. Self- efficacy Verbal persuasion Imitation and modelling Physiological arousal Performance Sources of perceived self - efficacy Beliefs about capabilities to influence events that affect their lives. “ If I can’t do a job first time, I keep on trying until I can”
    9. 9. Social Climate and Self-Efficacy Motivational Climate Mastery Performance Effort & improvement Important role Cooperative learning Intra-team rivalry Unequal recognition Punishment of mistakes
    10. 10. Sports competence Perceived strength Physical condition Body Attractiveness Importance filter Self-efficacy Physical self-efficacy Importance filter Global self esteem        Source: K Fox (1990) Social acceptance Academic self-concept Role(s) competence Religion/culture Self-esteem Hierarchical and multidimensional model
    11. 11. Traffic Lights Correlation and meaning Traffic controlled by lights  Regularities of behaviour  Correlation: colour/observable behaviour But…... meaning of relationship?  General theory linking traffic signals/traffic movement
    12. 12. Sport Magic box; social vaccine   Mechanisms, processes, experiences Necessary conditions  sufficient conditions Families of programmes  families of mechanisms Not ‘sport’  process is all Not ‘sport’  sport plus .is it even sport? Causation is contingent……………      ‘ Sport’ presumed to have causal powers  Closed system: medical/treatment model  Measure ‘outcomes’ It ‘s not what you do, but the way that you do it.
    13. 13. Rosenberg Self-esteem scale For each of the statements below, indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement: Strongly Strongly agree Agree Disagree disagree On the whole I am satisfied with myself     At times I think I am no good at all     I feel that I have a number of good     qualities I am able to do things as well as most     other people I feel I do not have much to be proud of     I certainly feel useless at times     I feel that I am a person of worth, at     least equal with others I wish I had more respect for myself     All in all, I am inclined to think that     I am a failure I take a positive attitude towards myself     Believing I can do  believing in me
    14. 14. A normal distribution Sport for ‘development’?
    15. 15. How can we ask him questions ?
    16. 16. <ul><li>Experienced as more intrusive than questionnaire? </li></ul><ul><li> especially sensitive issues [cultural and individual factors] </li></ul><ul><li> I nterviewee and interviewer </li></ul><ul><li>Interviewer bias </li></ul><ul><li>More subjective than questionnaires  researcher decides issues </li></ul><ul><li>to pursue/what to hear [reporting: quotes/examples] </li></ul><ul><li>Interviewer ‘perspective’ : </li></ul><ul><li>political/religious/cultural/personal/professional self-interest </li></ul><ul><li>Hearing what you want to hear… hearing what you think you hear </li></ul>Possible disadvantages
    17. 17. Any questions?

    ×