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