An analysis of emotional responses was found to be useful insofar as it helped gauge the ability of the Games to arouse excitement, considered to be an important factor in determining whether or not mechanisms might be triggered. Responses were coded according to whether references were interpreted by the researcher to be negative, positive, or neutral towards the hosting of the CWG in the East End. This issue warranted analysis since Wave 1 field notes recorded the researcher’s general observation that young people
did not exhibit any ‘connection’ with the forthcoming CWG, a situation which contradicted her expectation that young people would be ‘steeped’ in CWG-related matters at that time.
Emotional responses were found to be complex and nuanced, with evidence of multiple, conflicted and ambivalent feelings, subject to fluctuation over time. This is in keeping with the longitudinal qualitative study conducted by Kohe (2015), which found that young people’s anticipations and recollections of London 2012 were untidy, inconsistent and non-linear.
Before the Games
At Wave 1, the whole gamut of emotions was on display, ranging from positive feelings such as surprise and excitement; to negative feelings of frustration, disappointment, and scepticism. At first glance, young people’s feelings appeared to be precariously balanced between negative and positive, in stark contrast to key informants’ responses, which were universally supportive of the CWG. However, closer analysis indicated that responses were influenced by the method of data collection. Accordingly, while young people were positive about the CWG in 1:1 interviews by a ratio of almost 2:1, they were more likely to articulate negative feelings within the focus group format. There are a number of plausible explanations for this discrepancy. Young people might have uttered views which they considered more socially acceptable within a 1:1 scenario. The corollary is that the dynamic interaction of a focus group might have provided a more suitable platform for participants to defend their views and challenge those of others. The most compelling explanation is that the stimulus material used in the focus groups contained a plethora of public-facing statements about legacy which tended to arouse strong emotions and polarise responses.
In the main, positive feelings were generated from the anticipation of a high-profile event happening in the vicinity. The importance of spatial proximity trumped that of sports participation, as the following quotations from non-participants illustrate:
‘I don’t really watch like the CWG but obviously I will this year because it’s in my city’ (Ben, Wave 1).
‘I think I’ll watch it because it’s in Glasgow’ (Avril, Wave 1).
‘Usually, you wouldn’t pay attention to stuff like that, but now because it’s in your area, you’re likely to see what it’s like’ (Manny, Wave 1).
However, these excerpts mask the ‘micro-localisation’ of their views, with focus group discussions testifying to considerably less interest in the CWG, had it been hosted elsewhere in another part of the city: ‘So even though we're not affected the now, it [hosting the CWG elsewhere in Glasgow] would be even worse’ (Emma, Wave 1).
With regard to negative feelings, some were concerned about the misplaced priorities of city leaders and event organisers: ‘I think they should have helped the people that stayed in the East End, rather than just building a Velodrome, and that’s it’ (Kieran, Wave 1), with one boy going so far as to call the hosting enterprise a ‘con’ and a ‘vanity project’ (Said, Wave 1). Others were critical of the prevailing rhetorical discourse around legacy: ‘I think it’s kinda over-rated, I think people are making a bigger deal of it than it needs to be’ (Lisa, Wave 1); while others doubted that a legacy would be achieved at all: ‘There’s just going to be a crowd and then..it’ll just go away, like there’s not going to be any difference’ (Danny, Wave 1). Negative feelings also arose from a perception that young people had not been consulted with, or been targeted by promotional activity. The latter was especially galling for them since they lived within the core hosting zone: ‘Like you'd think people would say to us because of the things that are around us, the venues’ (Emma, Wave 1).
Further exploration attempted to detect patterns in the data which might explain why some groups were more likely than others to express particular feelings. Gendered patterning was apparent. Whereas positive and negative feelings were reported by boys in equal measure, girls were more likely to talk about the CWG in positive terms, specifically in terms of the excitement of a big event, of a welcome break in routine, of the unknown, and of the prospect of simply ‘being there’ at a defining moment in the city’s history. In terms of place of birth, those born in the East End were more likely to articulate a negative viewpoint (‘I don't see anything changing except there's a big Velodrome. Just sitting there’ (Kieran, Wave 1),a stance which stood in marked contrast to those not born in the East End (‘I think it's something great, a great opportunity for Glasgow to stand out from the rest of the world…(..) I think it's a great thing’ (Colin, Wave 1)). Club affiliation, sporting or otherwise, was also found to be influential. Further explanations were found in terms of sport participation, with competitive or elite sports players being the most positively disposed towards the CWG.
These findings correspond with the London 2012 survey data which concluded that regular sports participation and ethnicity were the strongest influencing factors for supporting the Games (TNS BMRB, 2012).
There was evidence of a clustering of attributes. Therefore, young people who were most likely to hold positive opinions towards the CWG were found to have any of the following characteristics: sports participant; not born in the East End; and a member of a social club.
Considering these in their entirety indicates something more fundamental at work than mere demographics or lifestyle characteristics. It is plausible that a particular outlook on life might account for attitudinal differences insofar as young people with pre-existing broad horizons might have been better positioned to recognise new CWG-related opportunities.
On an individual level, there was evidence of different perceptual readings of the same social phenomenon. The theme of disruption illustrates this point well, with its lived experience viewed either positively or negatively, depending on an individual’s place of residence; the importance of structured routine to their daily lives; or likely personal dividend. To illustrate this variability, the examples of three different people are provided. All three lived in the heart of the core hosting zone and thus were particularly impacted upon by construction work for a prolonged period of time. Different contextual factors gave rise to starkly contrasting attitudinal responses to disruption. Luke, a competitive sportsperson and frequent user of local sporting facilities, was frustrated by his temporary exclusion from these same facilities because of the CWG event. By contrast, Louise had a more positive response towards the disruption because she and her family had moved to a brand new house in the vicinity of the Athletes’ Village, and her mother and older sister had secured temporary employment and an internship respectively with the Glasgow 2014 OC. Kieran, a non-sport participant, was the most negatively disposed towards the CWG, a stance not entirely unexpected, given that he and his family had to endure noise and dust from the ongoing construction work with no prospect of any improvement in their circumstances.
After the Games
Analysis of Wave 2 coded references indicated an increased incidence of negative comments towards the CWG. As with Wave 1, discussion within focus groups at Wave 2 elicited more negative than positive commentary by a ratio of 2:1. However, in 1:1 interviews, feelings towards the CWG were poised precariously between positive and negative at Wave 2, compared to a positive weighting at Wave 1. A similar patterning of responses was evident at Wave 2, with those born in the East End more likely to hold a negative viewpoint, while elite or competitive sportspeople were the most positively disposed towards the CWG. The gendered pattern apparent in Wave 1 was no longer apparent.
At face value, this change of heart may seem disconcerting. Nevertheless, it was interpreted by the researcher as the inevitable consequence of gathering retrospective accounts of the CWG. While, at Wave 1, participants had discussed the forthcoming event somewhat tentatively, and in abstract terms; by Wave 2, they each had a personal story to tell about their own lived experience of the event. In short, there was more to talk about post-CWG, and young people felt more qualified to voice an opinion. A fairer representation of the prevailing mood post-Games was that of qualified approval, as typified by the following summations:
‘I’d say positive…I’d say it’s definitely more a positive than a negative’
(Gerry, Wave 2).
‘For me, it was never really something that was negative. I always had that sort of positive, you know. (..) And I still think that still stands, now it's done and we've seen what it was’ (Leona, Wave 2).
The level of support for the CWG amongst young people mirrored that of adult householders in the East End survey, which the researchers claim were higher than those recorded among residents before London 2012 (Cleland et al., 2015).
Negative comments in the post-Games period related to a miscellany of operational items which young people had themselves directly witnessed, including the speedy removal of CWG memorabilia; empty seats at events; excessive security; expensive tickets and catering;
and, in a deviant case, a perception that the CWG was ‘too English’ (Ben, Wave 2). Several criticisms lingered on from Wave 1, including the dominance of sport; inadequate engagement with young people; and low expectations about social change. However, criticism relating to the commercial aspects of hosting sporting events represented a new entry in the ledger book: ‘I didn’t think there was that much that actually related to the CWG.
I thought it was more like money-making than anything’ (Gerry, Wave 2).
With regard to positive comments, the dominant view was that the staging of the Games event had been exemplary. This feeling was often accompanied with a sense of relief that earlier fears about violence had not materialised:
‘There was no drama. Like people would usually think that Glaswegians and Glasgow in the East End are all fighting and stuff, and there was no drama, like there was no fighting’ (Morag, Wave 2).
‘Like it showed that especially the East End of Glasgow isn't that bad, because obviously people didn't get hurt, or there wasn't massive fights or anything’
(Ben, Wave 2).
Also worthy of particular mention was the unexpected ‘cheery’ and ‘positive’ atmosphere that pervaded the city during the eleven days of celebration (see 7.4.1).
One particular case represented an interesting outlier. Describing his attitudinal shift as a
‘conversion’, Said conceded that he no longer supported his earlier denouncement of the CWG hosting as a ‘vanity project’ and a ‘con’. The following excerpt describes his epiphany:
‘I think it [the CWG] was really worthwhile. I thought it was ehm ..my opinion's not changed in the sense that probably they could have spent the money better, but I think it was a very positive experience. And I think ...I doubted there would be a legacy...but I think there is something of a legacy, I think. Obviously, the houses are going to people, they're going to be affordable houses, stuff like that, the facilities, the Emirates Arena, so I think there is a legacy. And I didn't think there would be one really, I was sceptical about that’
(Said, Wave 2).
Although this statement acknowledges tangible legacy impacts, it does not discount the risk of opportunity cost, on the basis that investment in the CWG might not have been the best use of limited public resources.