Lifestyle sport, public policy and youth engagement: examining the emergence of parkour

Abstract

In this article we consider the development of parkour in the South of England and its use in public policy debates and initiatives around youth, physical activity and risk. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with participants and those involved in the development of parkour in education, sport policy and community-based partnerships, we explore the potential of parkour to engage communities, particularly those traditionally excluded from mainstream sport and physical education provision. We discuss how the perceived success of parkour in these different contexts is related to the culture and ethos of the activity that is more inclusive, anticompetitive and less rule-bound than most traditional sports, and to its ability to provide managed risk-taking. More broadly, the article highlights the emergence of lifestyle sports as tools for policymakers and the potential role these nontraditional, non-institutionalized lifestyle sports can make in terms of encouraging youth engagement, physical health and well-being. Our article therefore contributes to ongoing debates about the (in)ability of traditional sports to meet government targets for sport and physical activity participation

An existential phenomenological examination of parkour and freerunning

“…Exploring this theme further, the results of this study were largely consistent with Gilchrist and Wheaton's (2011) description of the open-minded and inclusive nature of parkour as one that encourages and supports newcomers, beginners, 'outsiders' and women (p.122), and is structured less by 'hegemonic masculinity' than is prevalent in other sports (p. 123). The two female traceurs that participated in this study supported and expanded on this notion.…”

“…The overall structure that emerged consists of two dimensions (bodily experience, interactive experience), and six supporting themes (play, movement, risk, interactive-community, interactive-public, and interactive-world). While some of the themes that emerged from this study support previous research on parkour (Atkinson 2009, Gilchrist and Wheaton, 2011, Bavinton 2007, and other lifestyle sports experiences , this phenomenological analysis of parkour has uncovered significant new details regarding the varied aspects, social elements, and physical sensations of the practice. It has also revealed a broad structure of the experience and provided a delineation of the major themes not found in previous research.…”

“…Yet despite the growth of the sport over the last decade, parkour has received relatively little attention from scholars (Atkinson, 2009;Bavinton, 2007;Gilchrist & Wheaton, 2011;. This small but growing body of literature, however, has revealed numerous insights and implications for future research on the sport.…”

“…Additionally, the recent opening of full-time parkour and freerunning training academies (Ensign 2009) further illustrates the sport's popularity, progression and development. Yet despite the growth of the sport over the last decade, parkour has received relatively little attention from scholars (Atkinson 2009, Bavinton 2007, Gilchrist and Wheaton 2011. While this small but growing body of research has revealed numerous insights about the sport, less is known about traceurs' 2 subjective experiences.…”

Mixed-sex in sport for development: a pragmatic and symbolic device. The case of touch rugby for forced migrants in Rome

“…However, although a vast proportion of sport-for-development programmes aimed at women use football (soccer) as their main activity (Hancock, Lyras, and Ha 2013), a growing number of initiatives that aim at blurring boundaries and categorization entail either the desportization of traditional, mainstream sports (Sterchele 2015) or the use of alternative activities which are deemed more suitable to favour social mixing and inclusion, such as tchoukball, touch rugby, dodgeball, korfball, as well as emerging lifestyle sports (e.g. Crum 1988;Gilchrist and Wheaton 2011;Thorpe and Rinehart 2012). In either case, mixed-sex activities are organized to encourage female participation, limit male dominance and challenge gender stereotypes.…”