Exploring parkrun as a social context for collective health practices: running with and against the moral imperatives of health responsibilisation

Abstract

Critiques of public health policies to reduce physical inactivity have led to calls for practice-led research and the need to reduce the individualising effects of health promotion discourse. The purpose of this paper is to examine how parkrun - an increasingly popular, regular, community-based 5 km running event - comes to be understood as a 'health practice' that allows individuals to enact contemporary desires for better health in a collective social context. Taking a reflexive analytical approach, we use interview data from a geographically diverse sample of previously inactive parkrun participants (N = 19) to explore two themes. First, we argue that parkrun offers a space for 'collective bodywork' whereby participants simultaneously enact personal body projects while they also experience a sense of being 'all in this together' which works to ameliorate certain individualising effects of health responsibilisation. Second, we examine how parkrun figures as a health practice that makes available the subject position of the 'parkrunner'. In doing so, parkrun enables newly active participants to negotiate discourses of embodied risk to reconcile the otherwise paradoxical experience of being an 'unfit-runner'. Findings contribute to sociological understandings of health and illness through new insights into the relation between health practices and emerging physical cultures, such as parkrun.

Health and broader community benefit of parkrun—An exploratory qualitative study

“…The appealing characteristics of parkrun reported by participants were mostly common to those reported in the UK parkrun literature, including a positive atmosphere, supportive community environment, opportunities for socialising and a culture of inclusivity/accessibility . New facilitators reported included feeling safe and enjoying the off‐road environment.…”

“…Together, this highlights that parkrun is getting many things right and that it is different to many other organised PA pursuits, particularly within the leisure and sporting sectors. This study also explored barriers to more frequent parkrun participation finding that among this sample of parkrunners most barriers reported were episodic and not parkrun specific (eg, inclement weather), some of which were common to those cited in the general PA literature (eg, related to time constraints) . The suggestion by one participant that the name “ parkrun” implies fast running and therefore may be a deterrent for some people was the only parkrun‐ specific barrier discussed.…”

“…Whereas other studies primarily discussed the individual or social experience of parkrun , this research also examined whether parkrun stimulates individual PA . Consequently, the sample included non‐runners and non‐walkers pre‐ parkrun , whereas other studies included only non‐runners . Some participants reported that parkrun had stimulated a transition from being a non‐exerciser to a regular exerciser or that they were doing more PA because of parkrun .…”

“…Another cross‐sectional survey indicated that parkrun participation may contribute to enhanced well‐being . UK qualitative research identified that parkrun was appealing due to its inclusive ethos (eg, all ages and abilities), accessibility (eg, no fees, convenient location and time), social support (giving and receiving), sense of community and opportunities for socialising or friendship development or for health or fitness gains—qualities that are common and powerful correlates of PA …”

Changing emotional engagement with running through communal self‐tracking: the implications of ‘teleoaffective shaping’ for public health

“…Strava, in providing a range of integrated ways through which teleoaffective shaping projects can be undertaken, has created a diverse experience of social interaction and meaning making, which in fact ties closely with the benefits of communal physical activity found in other studies (Copelton , Wiltshire et al . ).We note that device manufacturers assume that users primarily are interested in ‘getting more health‐related information’ (Pantzar and Ruckenstein ), but in fact much of this ‘health optimization’ data can fail to engage people (Ruckenstein ) and attrition from self‐tracking is common (Lupton and Smith ). It may be that other features, including the capacity for free‐flowing communal dialogue, are most important for sustained engagement with self‐tracking and the tracked activity.…”