Instrumentos internacionales relevantes

According to Yin (2003b, p.9), selecting cases ‘is one of the most difficult steps in case study research.’ Cases should not simply be the most convenient or accessible, but selected through a process that incorporates specific reasons for inclusion, and a

‘sufficient level of prior screening … to help the researcher decide whether a case meets … pre-established criteria’ (Yin, 2003b, p.10). As this study is informed by a qualitative research methodology and follows a theoretical rather than statistical logic, Mason (1996, pp.93-94) argued that the selection of cases should be centred on ‘their relevance to your research questions, your theoretical position … and most importantly the explanation or account which you are developing.’ The underlying research question for this study is a critical realist investigation on whether SMNGBs are primarily ‘policy shapers’ or ‘policy takers’ within the UK sport policy domain, utilising the ACF as a theoretical framework from which to evaluate the sport policy process.

81 A rationale for SMNGBs as the unit of analysis can therefore been seen from a theoretical position, however, greater clarification is required as to what is meant by a small to mid-sized NGB and their importance to this research. Thorhallsson and Wivel (2006) argued that the identification of smallness is problematic given the myriad of ways size can be expressed. Trõnurist (2010) and Sutton (2011) suggested that smallness can be best viewed lying on a continuum. In this sense, the organisational size of NGBs can been conceptualised along a continuum of state funding for NGBs, reflecting SE investment awards for community/grassroots sport during the 2013-17 funding cycle, as illustrated in Figure 4.3 (ring-fenced funding has been excluded based on the assumption that they are unconfirmed awards). It is important to note that this study is interested in Summer Olympic sports in England and not Paralympic sports, hence the exclusion of those NGB/sports from the selection process.

Figure 4.3: Continuum of NGB state funding (Sport England 2013-17 Olympic sport investment)

Large NGB Mid-sized NGB Small NGB

£32m £9.2m £0.9m

Cycling Athletics Badminton Hockey Canoeing Sailing Triathlon Judo Volleyball Boxing Table-Tennis Taekwondo Shooting Modern-Pentathlon Football Rugby Union Golf Gymnastics Swimming Rowing Tennis Equestrian Basketball Archery Fencing Handball Weightlifting Wrestling

Source adapted from: SE (2013c – see Appendix IV)

82 Accordingly, SMNGBs of Olympic sports in England with potential value for inclusivity within this study were those that met the following initial phase of pre-selection criteria:

(a) Regarded as competitive/community sports but not elite sports, due to the removal of elite funding by UKS (for the Rio 2016 funding cycle), as indicated from UKS’s historical funding data¹¹; and

(b) Receive smaller levels of funding from SE (in relation to community/grassroots participation) relative to the average funding of NGBs of Olympic sports during the 2013-17 funding cycle (i.e. less than £9.2m – see Appendix IV).

It should be noted that the Olympic sports of football, golf, rugby union and tennis receive no elite funding from UKS, as there is an ‘expectation that they self-fund’

(UKS, 2012, p.4). However, the above sports were excluded from selection on the basis that they are generally considered to be traditionally larger NGB/sports in England, receive higher levels of SE funding above the calculated average, and are highly self-funding.

To ensure that case study selection provided contrasts for cross-case comparisons and conclusions, a second phase of pre-selection was undertaken linked to SE’s APS (1x30) 16-plus data (2006 to 2016) on levels of participation, with each potential SMNGB case being representative of one of the following criteria:

i) An insufficient sample size to provide statistical data for the APS;

ii) No change or a significant change upwards in participation levels between APS1 and APS10; and

iii) A significant change downwards in participation levels between APS1 (and APS10.

11 UKS’s historical funding data. Available online from: http://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/historical-funding-figures

83 To demonstrate the results of the second pre-selection phase, a snapshot of SE’s APS data has been provided in the appendices (Appendix V), focused on the changes in participation levels between APS1 (2006) and APS10 (2016). Table 4.2 identifies those Olympic sports that met the above pre-established selection criteria.

Table 4.2: Pre-selected Olympic Sports as potential case studies

Olympic sports

84 From the second phase of pre-selection, table tennis and its representative SMNGB, Table Tennis England (TTE), met the criterion for a sport with no change or a significant increase in participation levels, as measured by APS. The sports of volleyball and basketball both met the criterion for a significant decrease in participation levels, as measured by APS. Following a review of document availability and accessibility, Basketball England documentation was found to be very limited in contrast to Volleyball England (VE), and thus Volleyball England was selected as the case study from which more could be learnt for this study, as endorsed by Stake (2005). Fencing, handball, wrestling and weightlifting all met the criterion for a sport having an insufficient sample size to be measured by APS.

However, in consideration of Hakim’s (2000, p.62) argument that ‘some degree of prior knowledge may be necessary for suitable cases to be selected’, handball was the selected case study on the basis of accessibility, and the researcher’s prior knowledge of handball and the England Handball Association (EH).