APPLICATION FORM FOR PROSPECTIVE WORKSHOP DIRECTORS

Transcription

1 APPLICATION FORM FOR PROSPECTIVE WORKSHOP DIRECTORS If you wish to apply to direct a workshop at the Joint Sessions in Nicosia, Cyprus, in Spring 2006, please first see the explanatory notes, then complete this form, which will serve as the cover sheet for your workshop proposal. This form should be sent with your workshop proposal to the ECPR Central Services. You can do this by either ing both documents as an attached file (in word format.doc or rich text format.rtf) to the ECPR Central Services at ecpr@essex.ac.uk. Alternatively, you can print up the information and send it as a fax to the Central Services, fax: The deadline for applications is 15 February Title of proposed workshop: Sport, Politics and Public Policy Abstract of proposed workshop. Maximum of 250 words (suitable for publication in the academic programme leaflet and on the ECPR web site): Any analysis of public policy statements and interventions of (national and sub-national level governments) worldwide belies the familiar cliché that sport and politics should not mix. Sport is thus an increasingly significant contributor to the public policy agendas of a diverse range of countries and governments. In the UK, for example, governments on both sides of the political spectrum have, over the last 10 years or so, invested large amounts of public money into the development of elite athletes, school sport and physical education, and initiatives to raise physical activity levels of the population. Research activity in this field spans a broad array of interests and perspectives (e.g. public policy analyses, comparative studies, sport and international politics, sport, urban regeneration and mega-events, sport and physical education, and sport and social exclusion). Papers that include a comparative element are particularly welcome, however, given the interdisciplinary nature of the field, and the broad array of interrelated interests indicated above, we would also welcome the following type of papers: macro and meso level public policy analyses, socio-political research, case studies, empirical work and those from different methodological and theoretical standpoints. It is anticipated that some of the indicative questions for debate and discussion in the workshop will include: Why are governments investing increasingly large amounts of political and financial resources into sport?; What are the intended social, political and policy outcomes of such investment?; Is this the most efficient and effective allocation of scarce financial resources?; What are the relative roles of national and sub-national governments? And, given the historically weak position of sport as a public policy issue: Is sport policy now sufficiently embedded to withstand a downturn in government interest? Name of workshop director(s): 1. Dr Hilmar Rommetvedt 2. Dr Mick Green Name and address of institution(s): 1. RF-Rogaland Research, P.O. Box 8046, N-4068 Stavanger, Norway 2. Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK 1

2 Telephone number/s: Hilmar Rommetvedt: ; Mick Green: +44 (0) Fax number/s: Hilmar Rommetvedt: ; Mick Green: +44 (0) address/s: Hilmar Rommetvedt: Mick Green: Please note that the information above is VERY important, as it will be used in all future correspondence and, if the proposal is successful, printed in the academic programme. The proposal should be typed with 1.5 line spacing on three/four A4 pages using this sheet as the first page, and should cover the points outlined in the guidelines ( For further information, please contact either: ECPR Central Services University of Essex Wivenhoe Park COLCHESTER CO4 3SQ Essex, UK Tel: /2497 Fax: Web: 2

3 ECPR Joint Sessions, Nicosia 2006 Workshop Proposal Sport, Politics and Public Policy Outline of the topic In the early 1990s Houlihan (1991: 5) stated that It is one of the common clichés associated with sport that sport and politics should not mix. Our view is that Houlihan s ensuing argument that naivety is perhaps the best way to interpret such a cliché is correct. In Norway, for example, the government has played an active role in the development of sports since WW II (Goksøyr 1996), while the United Kingdom (UK) has come a long way in the last 30 years. In 1975, the White Paper, Sport and Recreation, maintained that It is not for the Government to seek to control or direct the diverse activities of people s leisure time (Department of the Environment 1975: 4). However, in the intervening years, it is clear that governments from different sides of the political spectrum in the UK have adopted increasingly interventionist positions in respect of sport and public policy-making. Moreover, during the last 10 years, there are many examples to suggest that the political/policy profile of sport has gathered pace (cf. Department for Culture, Media and Sport [DCMS] 2000; Department of National Heritage 1995; DCMS/Strategy Unit 2002). It is not only in the UK that the political/policy salience of sport has shifted from what might be termed indifference to a situation where sport is regularly called upon, either directly or indirectly, to support a number of key political/policy objectives. In the developed western world Australia stands out in this respect. As Stewart, Nicholson, Smith and Westerbeek (2004: 195) conclude, The question is no longer should the Commonwealth Government invest in sport, but rather how much and where. Although the journey has been somewhat more problematic than in Australia, over the past 40 years, the Canadian federal government has been similarly enthusiastic in promoting the value of sport, albeit primarily for national unity purposes (cf. Macintosh and Whitson 1990). Sport plays a similarly prominent role in many Scandinavian countries (Skirstad and Felde 1996; Mangset and Rommetvedt 2002). However, it is not only in developed western nations where sport, policy and politics have coalesced and assumed increasing significance. The diversity of these countries in terms of size, GDP and development clearly shows that sport s value transcends traditional lines of departure. From the early 1950s to the late 1980s the salience of sport to the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and German Democratic Republic in particular has been well- 3

4 rehearsed (cf. Riordan 1978, 1991). More recently, China is due to stage the 2008 Olympic Games, and Japan (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 2000) and Singapore (McNeill, Sproule and Horton 2003) are investing political and financial resources into sport. At the same time, governments in under-developed African nations (e.g. Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco) bask in the global spotlight as their athletes enjoy success at the Olympic Games (with the caveat that many of these countries athletes train, and benefit from support, outside their home nations). In short, sport is now high on the political and public policy agenda across a diverse range of countries. It is therefore timely for a political science forum to afford the opportunity for colleagues working in this area to debate the many and varied issues arising from the above discussion. There is clearly a growing interest from scholars in different countries to explore the linkages between sport, politics and public policy (see below). The ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops provides an ideal platform for colleagues to share and debate their interests and research in this field. Relation to existing research There is a strong body of literature that falls within the sport, politics and public policy genre; a genre moreover that has largely embraced an interdisciplinary approach, both methodologically and theoretically. The examples provided here are not meant to be exhaustive and many overlap with one another: the aim is to indicate the breadth of research interests in different countries. This body of research includes public policy analyses (cf. Bergsgard and Rommetvedt 2004; Henry 1993, 2001; Houlihan 1991; Houlihan and White 2002; Macintosh and Whitson 1990; Mangset and Rommetvedt 2002; Oakley and Green 2001; Stewart et al. 2004); comparative studies (cf. Green 2003, 2004a 2004b; Green and Houlihan 2004; Green and Houlihan 2005; Houlihan 1997) sport and international politics (cf. Arnaud and Riordan 1998; Houlihan 1994) sport, urban regeneration and mega-events (cf. Gratton and Henry 2001; Roche 2000); sport and physical education (cf. Evans and Penney 1995; Kirk 1992; Penney and Evans 1997); and sport and social exclusion (cf. Collins and Kay 2003). There is also a substantial body of interrelated sociological research informed inter alia by issues of class, gender, race, national identity, health, and globalisation (cf. Bairner 2001; Carrington and McDonald 2001; Cashmore 1990; Donnelly 2000; Kay 2000; Kidd 1995; Maguire 1999; Mckay 1997; Sugden and Bairner 1999; Waddington 2000). 4

5 Participants Sociologists have perhaps dominated sport studies, but there is a growing interest in sport politics and policy among political scientists (indeed, sport policy-making is one of the main topics of a research programme on Sport, Society and the Voluntary Sector funded by the Research Council of Norway). In the UK, there have been three major national sport policy statements over the past 10 years; between 1976 and 1994, there were none. Therefore, this workshop is an opportunity for political scientists and public policy analysts to engage in collaborative debate on issues that have perhaps to date been somewhat neglected by these disciplines. The current salience of sport as a public policy issue suggests that it is time for engagement. Type of paper We would particularly welcome papers of a comparative nature. However, given the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, and the broad array of interrelated interests indicated above, we would also welcome the following type of papers: macro and meso level public policy analyses, socio-political research; case studies, empirical work and those from different methodological and theoretical standpoints. Funding Participants are expected to cover their own costs. Biographical note Dr Hilmar Rommetvedt is Head of Research in political science at Rogaland Research in Stavanger, Norway. His research interests include analyses of political institutions and policy making, including an ongoing comparative study of sport and politics in Canada, England, Germany and Norway. Recent publications include: Bergsgard, N. A. and H. Rommetvedt, Norwegian Sport Politics and Policy: A Reflection of General Trends or Deviant Sector?. 25th annual conference of North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS), Tucson, Arizona, November 3 6, H. Rommetvedt (2003), The Rise of the Norwegian Parliament, London: Frank Cass. 5

6 Mangset, P. and H. Rommetvedt (eds. 2002), Idrett og politikk kampsport eller lagspill? (Sport and politics martial art or team play?), Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Dr Mick Green is a lecturer in Sport and Leisure Policy and Management in the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University. His current research interests include analyses of policy change, governance and modernisation in elite sport development in different countries and school sport and physical education in England. Recent publications include: Green, M. Changing Policy Priorities for Sport in England: The Emergence of Elite Sport Development as a Key Policy Concern, Leisure Studies, 23(4), 2004, , ISSN Green, M. Power, Policy, and Political Priorities: Elite Sport Development in Canada and the United Kingdom, Sociology of Sport Journal, 21(4), 2004, , ISSN Green, M. and Houlihan, B. Advocacy Coalitions and Elite Sport Development in Canada and the United Kingdom, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39(4), 2004, , ISSN Green, M. and Houlihan, B. Elite Sport Development: Policy Learning and Political Priorities, forthcoming February 2005, Routledge, London, ISBN X (hbk), ISBN (pbk). References Arnaud, P. & Riordan, J. (Eds) (1998). Sport and international politics. London: E & FN Spon. Bairner, A. (2001). Sport, nationalism and globalisation: European and North American perspectives. New York: State University of New York Press. Bergsgard, N. A. and H. Rommetvedt (2004), Norwegian Sport Politics and Policy: A Reflection of General Trends or Deviant Sector?. 25th annual conference of North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS), Tucson, Arizona, November 3 6, Carrington, B. & McDonald, I. (Eds) (2001). Race, sport, and British society. London: Routledge. Cashmore, E. (1990). Making sense of sports. London: Routledge. Collins, M. with Kay, T. (2003). Sport and social exclusion. London: Routledge. Department for Culture Media & Sport. (2000). A sporting future for all. London: Author. Department for Culture Media & Sport/Strategy Unit. (2002). Game Plan: A strategy for delivering Government's sport and physical activity objectives. London: Author. Department of National Heritage. (1995). Sport: Raising the game. London: Author. Department of the Environment. (1975). Sport and recreation (White Paper, Cmnd. 6200). London: HMSO. 6

7 Donnelly, P. (Ed) (2000). Taking sport seriously: Social issues in Canadian sport (2 nd edn). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing. Evans, J. & Penney, D. (1995). Physical education, restoration and the politics of sport. Curriculum Studies, 3(2): Goksøyr, M. (ed. 1996), Kropp, kultur og tippekamp. Statens idrettskontor, STUI og idrettsavdelingen Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Gratton, C. & Henry, I. P. (2001). Sport in the city: The role of sport in economic and social generation. London: Routledge. Green, M. (2003). An analysis of elite sport policy change in three sports in Canada and the United Kingdom. Unpublished PhD thesis. Loughborough University, Loughborough. Green, M. (2004a) Changing policy priorities for sport in England: The emergence of elite sport development as a key policy concern. Leisure Studies, 23(4): Green, M. (2004b).Power, policy, and political priorities: Elite sport development in Canada and the United Kingdom. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21(4): Green, M. & Houlihan, B. (2004). Advocacy coalitions and elite sport development in Canada and the United Kingdom. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 39(4): Green, M. & Houlihan, B. (forthcoming February 2005). Elite sport development: Policy learning and political priorities. London: Routledge. Henry, I. P. (1993). The politics of leisure policy. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Henry, I. P. (2001). The politics of leisure policy (2 nd edn). Houndmills: Palgrave. Houlihan, B. (1991). The government and politics of sport. London: Routledge. Houlihan, B. (1994). Sport and international politics. New York and London: Harvester- Wheatsheaf. Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy and politics: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge. Houlihan, B. & White, A. (2002). The politics of sport development: Development of sport or development through sport? London: Routledge. Kay, T. (2000). Sporting excellence: A family affair? European Physical Education Review, 6(2): Kidd, B. (1995). Confronting inequality in sport and physical activity. Avante, 1(1): Kirk, D. (1992). Defining physical education: The social construction of a school subject in postwar Britain. London: Falmer Press. Macintosh, D. & Whitson, D. (1990). The game planners: Transforming Canada's sport system. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Maguire, J. (1999). Global sport: Identities, societies, civilisations. Cambridge: Polity Press. Mangset, P. and H. Rommetvedt (eds. 2002), Idrett og politikk kampsport eller lagspill? (Sport and politics martial art or team play?), Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. McKay, J. (1997). Managing gender: Affirmative action and organisational power in Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand sport. Albany NY: State University of New York Press. 7

8 McNeill, M., Sproule, J., & Horton, P. (2003). The changing face of sport and physical education in post-colonial Singapore. Sport, Education and Society, 8(1): Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2000). Sports and youth. Retrieved 9 February, 2005, from the World Wide Web: Oakley, B. & Green, M. (2001). Still playing the game at arm's length?: The selective reinvestment in British sport, Managing Leisure, 6, Penney, D. & Evans, J. (1997). Naming the game: discourse and domination in physical education and sport in England and Wales. European Physical Education Review, 3(1): Riordan, J. (Ed.). (1978). Sport under communism. London: C. Hurst. Riordan, J. (1991). Sport, politics and communism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Roche, M. (2000). Mega-events and modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. London: Routledge. Skirstad, B. and K. Felde (1996), Sport Policy in Norway, in L. Chalip, A. Johnson and A. Stachura (eds.), National Sport Policies, London: Greenwood Press. Stewart, B., Nicholson, M., Smith, A., & Westerbeek, H. (2004). Australian sport: Better by design? The evolution of Australian sport policy. London: Routledge Sugden, J. & Bairner, A. (Eds) (1999). Sport in divided societies. Aachen: Meyer and Meyer. Waddington, I. (2000). Sport, health and drugs: A critical sociological perspective. London: E & FN Spon. 8