Participatory research in sport-for-development: Complexities, experiences and (missed) opportunities

‘Like, what even is a podcast?’ Approaching sport-for-development youth participatory action research through digital methodologies

“…Further, meaningful co-production and execution of the 'action' stage within any PAR project is far from guaranteed (Kesby 2007). Many PAR projects fail to achieve action, due to the time and resources that are required, clashes with institutional priorities, concerns over rigour, uncertain timelines, and the need to navigate multiple roles (Cammarota and Fine 2008;Spaaij et al 2018). Given these limitations, some participatory researchers have turned to digital methodologies as a way to achieve the goals of PAR and YPAR, discussed further below.…”

“…Overall, the effective use of participatory approaches in SfD remains contested. Spaaij et al (2018) in particular have argued that most SfD research using PAR falls short of successful implementation at three inter-related points including the degree of local participation, powershifting, and reflexivity. Regarding the first point, there is often a low level of authentic engagement in participatory SfD research because it is difficult to collaborate authentically with coresearchers, or to engage them beyond the data collection stages.…”

“…Specifically, PAR in SfD has been theorised as a way to enhance understandings of sport within the social lives of young people, challenge hegemonic forms of knowledge production, and increase the relevance of the research findings for participants, as well as for practitioners, policy makers, and even general audiences (see Spaaij et al 2018;Darnell and Hayhurst 2011). At the same time, PAR in SfD has been critiqued for falling short of full participation of all stakeholders, actual shifts in power, or legitimate reflexivity (Spaaij et al 2018).…”

“…Specifically, PAR in SfD has been theorised as a way to enhance understandings of sport within the social lives of young people, challenge hegemonic forms of knowledge production, and increase the relevance of the research findings for participants, as well as for practitioners, policy makers, and even general audiences (see Spaaij et al 2018;Darnell and Hayhurst 2011). At the same time, PAR in SfD has been critiqued for falling short of full participation of all stakeholders, actual shifts in power, or legitimate reflexivity (Spaaij et al 2018). In turn, despite increased recognition of digital methods in participatory research (see Gubrium 2009;Gubrium and Harper 2013;Gubrium, Harper & Otanez, 2015) to date little attention has been paid to the place of digital technologies or methodologies when using PAR in the specific context of SfD.…”

Evaluation of a program targeting sports coaches as deliverers of health-promoting messages to at-risk youth: Assessing feasibility using a realist-informed approach

“…Third, the set-up of this process evaluation was developed in close collaboration with staff and other local stakeholders and is, thus, a strength. Spaaij et al [53] stated that in situations where there is a high degree of participation, mutual learning is established and obstacles of cultural boundaries are lifted. However, measurement instruments, such as observation and interview guides, were developed independent from stakeholders.…”