Mecanismos de Inserción

The title of the final theme discussed in this paper reflects the remarkable diversity of experience and opinion regarding integration and the integrated model of sport. Analysis of the data produced some interesting perceptions regarding integration, specific to groupings of participants involved in the research. Interestingly sport administrators and managers demonstrated a clear discourse of commitment to the value of integration for para sport athletes. Lincoln, a sport management scholar, stated:

Integration for the para sport athletes, I’m sure is great. To be part of the main competition rather than following the Olympics like the

Paralympics do, must be great [for them].

His opinion regarding the perceived benefits of integration for para sport athletes was reinforced by other non-athletes. The benefits to and for para sport athletes via integration in sport are further reflected in the comments of other non-athletes:

More people who would otherwise not see para sport get the chance to see it…the (para) athletes must love that. (Vivian, Volunteer)

Para athletes want what able-bodied athletes have. Integration like here at Gold Coast allows them to have it all. (Nick, Sport Scientist)

I think it’s great that disabled athletes are competing here. I know how I remember my years of competitive sport. I would want that for any

athlete. (Alf, Educator/Former Olympian)

Other non-athletes acknowledged and emphasized the social value of the integrated sporting environment. The opinions of these non-athlete participants suggested that integration generated opportunity for rich personal experiences, remarkable stories about disability and sport for public consumption, and new social contexts in which to

appreciate the event:

These stories are great. Hearing those stories, the stories of the disabled athletes makes sport more human, less corporate than the

Olympic Games. (Bill, Educator/Former Olympian)

I love it. It adds so much to the Games. (Wayne, Shooting Coach)

I have a passion for para sport. Quite frankly high-performance sport for able bodied athletes gets a little boring. (Alan, Physiotherapist)

Unanimous endorsement of the integrated model by multiple non-athlete stakeholders reflects two differing discourses about integration. One perspective regarding integration reflects an assumption that para sport athletes should be grateful for inclusion at these Games. The language used by some non-athletes demonstrates an ‘othering’ of para sport athletes and conveys a paternalistic attitude towards integration of para sport athletes at the event. A second perspective whereby integration has substantial social value as voiced by non-athletes, is a by-product of the social assumption that integration is desired and desirable. Integration of sport, as exemplified by these Games, provided a platform to highlight their social justice agenda, including an opportunity to experience the stories of para sport athletes. Absent from these non-athlete remarks around integration is any

reflection upon the material value of integration for able-bodied athletes. Critical to these findings, is the foregrounding of the non-athlete status of these participants. These participants were not athletes, and none lived with impairment. They lacked the embodied experience of both impairment and of the high-performance athlete.

Collectively and unanimously, this group of participants failed to question the value of the integrated competition model of sport. As summarized by Colleen, a volunteer in the Village, “I just thought integration was a good thing. I think everybody thinks so. It never crossed my mind that para sport athletes might not think the same”.

By contrast, para sport athletes did not share a common voice, nor did they unequivocally endorse integration in sport. Perspectives around integration of para sport athletes were diverse, reflecting varied experiences of the integrated model for sport. Several athletes did express support for the integrated model due in part to the experience of belonging; to sport, to team, to nation.

This is good. It is good to compete together. It makes you feel like you really belong to the sport. (Karen, powerlifting)

This is my first Commonwealth Games and think it’s fantastic! I feel just like we are one team. (Howard, lawn bowls)

We are one people. We all belong to the same family. The more we come together as one family, the better we will understand this and the

better we all will be. (Felix, athletics)

This is how it should be. One country, one team. This is not a freak show that follows the Olympics. (Adam, athletics)

These athletes drew upon the narrative of team in their endorsement of integration. Their interview data suggested that the integrated model provided an opportunity to be part of something bigger and a strong sense of social connectedness. The narrative of team narrative clearly reflected in Jane’s comments. She discussed her support for both segregated and integrated models of competition, with an understanding that perhaps these different sporting models served different purposes. According to Jane’s interview,

segregated competition privileged a unique connection with the para sport community. Her experience at these Commonwealth Games however, offered her a new perspective on the connections between able-bodied and para sport:

I like both models and think there is a need for both. Para Pans was my first experience and I learned so much about para sport. I was so proud

of myself. I like this [Commonwealth Games] model too. I’ve met athletes I wouldn’t have met otherwise, and they learn about my sport

and I learn about their sport. I felt part of my team at both Games. (Jane, athletics)

As noted, the perspectives of para sport athletes about integration was not as homogenous as the opinions of non-athletes. Some athletes demonstrated support for integration because of their heightened experience of team within the integrated model. Other para sport athletes did not endorse the integrated model, reflecting in their remarks the drawbacks highlighted in the first two themes presented in our findings; the substantial social costs of integration including ableization of para sport and its negative impact on Games culture. A key constraint that echoed again regarding para sport athletes’

perspectives around integration was the marginality of para sport at these Games, inclusive of the exclusion of some para sport athletes in order adhere to size constraints of the Games:

Paralympic classification is eliminating classes for the most impaired athletes to compete. (Norm, athletics, wheelchair user)

The constraint related to Games size was also reflected in an experience of disconnect and lack of respect that some para sport athletes experienced in relation to their able- bodied counterparts. Kory, a para powerlifter noted:

Here the able-bodied athletes are not as warm and welcoming as para sport athletes. At non-integrated events, we are friendly to one another

Similarly, para sport athletes also expressed a discomfort regarding the hyper-visibility of their impairment in such an able-ized environment:

So, what I don’t like, is that I do feel stared at. When I’m walking up to the Dining Hall or when I start spasming and my bowl of cereal starts

dribbling onto the floor. (Ivan, table tennis)

Thus, significant tension was apparent from data analysis regarding the various

experiences of integration in the Games environment and how some members of the para sport contingent thought and experienced integrated sporting events.